In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-11328 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.5.2009 Jaswant Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.K.Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 118 dated 29.3.2009, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. As per the prosecution case, petitioner No.1 executed an agreement to sell in favour of the complainant on 25.11.2007 with regard to the land measuring 1 kanal situated in village Sultanwind, Sub Urban Mahal-2, Amritsar for a sum of Rs.14,50,000/-. It was also agreed that Rs.35,000/- would be paid extra for the boundary wall constructed on the plot. Sale deed was agreed to be registered on or before 25.2.2008. However, on Criminal Misc. No.M-11328 of 2009 -2- 5.2.2008, petitioner No.1 sold the property in question to Santokh Singh and Narinder Kaur for a consideration of Rs.23,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature. Hence, no offence of cheating or forgery was made out. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed this petition and has submitted that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. As per the prosecution case, petitioner No.1 executed an agreement to sell in favour of the complainant and received the earnest money. However, instead of getting the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant, petitioner No.1 sold the property in question to some other persons. Petitioner No.2 is attesting witness of the sale deed alleged to have been executed in favour of Santokh Singh and Narinder Kaur. Since, custodial interrogation of petitioner No.1 Jaswant Singh might be necessary, this petition seeking anticipatory bail qua him is dismissed. So far as petitioner No.2 Kuljit Singh is concerned, he is attesting witness of the sale deed executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of Santokh Singh and Narinder Kaur. His case is on a different footing and hence, this petition qua him for grant of anticipatory bail is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, petitioner No.2 Kuljit Singh be admitted to interim bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Criminal Misc. No.M-11328 of 2009 -3- However, he shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Agency; shall not temper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE May 07, 2009 anita