CRM-M 7069 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on August 06 ,2009. Raj Kumar -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KJMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.M.Tripathi,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.K.D.Sachdeva,Addl.A.G.Punjab. Mr.Anuj Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in a case registered vide FIR No.10 dated 23.1.2009 under Section 420/120-B IPC at Police Station, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar,Mohali. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Raj Kumar son of Dhodhe Singh on the allegations that Raj Kumar son of Kashmira (petitioner) and Jain Kumar (non-applicant) induced the complainant and others that they have been sent by Prem Chand Singla to sell two rooms house to the employees of Chandigarh at Himmatgarh Dhakoli @ Rs.4,42,000/-. Raj Kumar son of Kashmira (petitioner) assured the complainant that Prem Chand Singla would arrange loan from Punjab Central Cooperative Bank, Zirakpur. On 13.1.2004, Prem Chand Singla met the complainant and told him that he will sell the house for Rs. CRM-M 7069 of 2009 2 3,50,000/- but would show the same to have been sold for Rs.4,50,000/-. On 15.1.2004, the complainant was taken by Prem Chand Single to the office of Sub Registrar and house No. 78 was got registered in his name. The sale deed showed Prem Chand Single as General Power of Attorney of one Akhattar Singh but since the date of sale of the house, possession has not been delivered and in this manner, the petitioner has cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, SAS, Nagar, Mohali, which was dismissed on 12.2.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been granted interim bail by this Court and has also joined the investigation. He further submits that the petitioner had only introduced the complainant to Prem Chand Singla (builder) As against this, learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioner was hand-in-glove with the builder and as such he is equally responsible. Vide separate order of even date passed in CRM-M 9610 of 2009 (O&M) I have granted bail to Prem Chand Singla (builder) on his giving assurance to this Court that he will provide alternative plot with two rooms constructed thereon to the complainant and the complainant will return the loan amount to the bank, thus, a sort of compromise has been effected between the parties. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 27.3.2009, CRM-M 7069 of 2009 3 vide which the petitioner has been granted interim bail, is hereby made absolute. He shall keep on joining the investigation as and when required. He shall further abide by the provisions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. This petition stands disposed of. Aug 06 ,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge