Criminal Misc.-M No. 28193 of 2011 [1] IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 28193 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.11.2011 Balwinder Singh @ Lali .. Petitioner vs The State of Punjab .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of bail pending trial to the petitioner, who is in custody since 12.7.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sold one plot to the complainant vide sale deed registered on 6.11.1996. The complainant constructed her house and was living therein. The FIR was got registered on 30.1.2010 claiming that the petitioner had already sold the plot in question to his brother on 26.8.1988 and it was mortgaged with a bank for raising loan. The complainant came to know only when notice was received from the bank regarding recovery of the loan amount. The submission is that the petitioner never sold the plot to his brother as the sale was not reflected in the revenue record. Had the plot been purchased by the brother of the petitioner, who was also residing at Amritsar, where the plot in question is located, he would have immediately protested when the complainant had constructed the house thereon. It is a case triable by the Magistrate. Considering the period of custody of the petitioner, he be directed to be released on bail pending trial. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the story regarding the plot having not been sold to the brother of the petitioner has been projected in the present petition for the first time. Earlier this was not the stand of the petitioner. This aspect of the matter needs to be investigated. As Criminal Misc.-M No. 28193 of 2011 [2] per the allegations in the FIR, a case of cheating is made out against the petitioner and he does not deserve concession of bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner had sold the plot in question to his brother on 26.8.1988, still the same was sold to the complainant on 6.11.1996, but the fact remains that the complainant, who had bought the plot on 6.11.1996, had constructed the house and was living therein; brother of the petitioner, to whom the plot had allegedly been sold on 26.8.1988, had never raised any protest thereto and even there was no mutation in the revenue record regarding the sale deed allegedly executed in favour of the brother of the petitioner, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves concession of bail. He is directed to be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Amritsar. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 16.11.2011 mk