CRM-M-23134-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23134-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:09.08.2011. Jatinder ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No.230 dated 15.03.2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station City, Karnal. In the first anticipatory bail application bearing CRM-M-23134- 2011, the petitioner had attached true typed copies of Annexures P-5 and P-6 in order to show that the amount of earnest money has been paid by him to the complainant in installments. However, the first bail application was dismissed by this Court on 29.07.2011 with the following order: - “This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No.230 dated 15.03.2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station City, Karnal. The allegation contained in the FIR is that the petitioner Jatinder had entered into an agreement to sell house in dispute to the complainant Amit Kumar for a sum of `10,70,000/- and received an amount of CRM-M-23134-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] ***** `4,50,000/- towards earnest money from him. However, it has been found later on that the petitioner was not the owner of the said house as it was owned by Neelam Khurana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade this Court with the receipts indicating refund of earnest money to the complainant Amit Kumar. However, the true copies of Annexures P-5 and P-6 are silent about the the signatures of Amit Kumar because in Annexure P-5 there are no signatures of Amit Kumar and Annexure P-6 bears the signatures of Anil Kumar After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I do not find it to be a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.” The present application is filed on 31.07.2011 on the same cause of action in which the petitioner had tried to explain that there was some typographical mistake in Annexures P-5 and P-6 as the name of Amit Kumar was typed as Anil Kumar, otherwise the vernacular receipts bear the signatures of Amit Kumar. The case set up by the petitioner is that he had taken `4,50,000/- from the vendee/complainant as earnest money, but the agreement could not mature and the amount of earnest money has been returned. It is alleged that on 25.03.2009, a sum of `40,000/- was paid to Kuldeep Kumar in the presence of the witnesses and `25,000/- to Amit Kumar on 15.10.2009. Thereafter, Amit Kumar is alleged to have sworn an affidavit on 01.09.2010 of having received `3,85,000/- on that date. The said affidavit has been attested by K.D.Goyal, Notary Public, Karnal. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the documents on record, I am, prima facie, of the view that the signatures obtained on the affidavit are not of Amit Kumar. These signatures CRM-M-23134-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] ***** from the naked eyes can be held to be forged. The Notary Public, who has attested the affidavit, has given the certificate as under: - “Certified that the above was declared on solemn affirmation before me mentioned by the deponent who was identified by Shri ............... Sd/- Notary Public, Karnal.17.09.2010.” There is no identification by the Notary Public of the deponent who had signed before him on the affidavit. In view thereof, the custody of the petitioner is required in this case to find out the ways and means in which he has prepared two receipts as well as the affidavit as apparently he has not paid a single penny to the complainant. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Before parting, a word of caution is also given to Sh. K.D. Goyal, Notary Public, Karnal to be careful in future while attesting the affidavits. August 09, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE