Criminal Misc. No. M-1972 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-1972 of 2009 Date of Decision:22.01.2009 Jagpal Bajaj .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This application has been moved by Jagpal Bajaj under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.201 dated 27.12.2008 registered under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Nawanshahr, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr, Punjab. The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that the FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint moved by Manmohan Singh Gulati. As per the allegations, he had bought one Honda Accord Car bearing Temporary No.PB-08-R-7595 from Jagpal Bajaj (referring to the petitioner) for Rs.12 lacs. He paid Rs.9 lacs and took possession of the car. The rest of the amount was required to be paid by him at the time of signing of agreement. Later on, he came to know that there was a loan amount outstanding against the said car in the ICICI Bank. When he went for signing the agreement and to pay the remaining amount, then the petitioner Criminal Misc. No. M-1972 of 2009 -2- refused to sign the agreement and said that he wants to get back his car. The complainant requested the petitioner to pay back the amount so that he could return the car. The petitioner has not returned the aforesaid amount. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Arguendo, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is not prepared to return the amount of Rs.9 lacs. The petitioner has also refused to transfer the car in the name of the complainant. During inquiry held by DSP as well as SP, Headquarter, it was revealed that the petitioner had taken Rs.9 lacs from the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has returned this amount. On being asked, he regretted his inability to produce any receipt showing that he has returned this amount. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. That being so, no prima facie case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. As such, this petition is dismissed. January 22, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE