CRM-M 10902 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 10902 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.8.2009 Mahant Vichar Muni Chela Arjun Dass ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Khatkar, AAG Haryana for the State/respondent. Mr.G.S.Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.127 dated 7.3.2009 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. The allegations contained in the FIR are that the complainant is the member of a society called Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasi Shri Guru Sangat Sahib Ji Udaseen Niwaran, Kankhal, Haridwar and the petitioner was appointed as a Mehantam of Panhchayati Akhara Amargarh Majhara, who has illegally sold 136 kanals 10 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 23.12.2008 for a consideration of Rs.5 Crores although the said property is religious and the income thereof has to be seen spent for religious purposes. CRM-M 10902 of 2009 (O&M) -2- It is further alleged that misrepresenting himself to be the General Power of Attorney of Mahant Nirmal Dass and Mahant Ghansham Dass, the petitioner had filed a civil suit in which a compromise has been effected and on the basis of that compromise, a decree was drawn in the Mega Lok Adalat on 15.11.2008. It is also alleged that though Mahant Ghansham Dass expired on 28.1.1997 still on the basis of GPA dated 28.10.1994, Mahant Vichar Muni had exchanged the land which has been further sold. It is thus, alleged that it was a case of forgery and cheating. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on 10.4.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the dispute in the present case is of civil nature which is being tried to be converted into a criminal case at the instance of the complainant. He further submits that the exchange has been effected on the basis of compromise between the parties in the civil suit and the decree was passed by the Mega Lok Adalat. Thereafter, property in question has been sold by the persons, who have got the property exchanged. As against this, counsel for the State as well as the complainant has vehemently argued that it is a case in which cheating and fraud is apparent on the face of it because the civil suit, which is the base of the decree passed by Mega Lok Adalat, could not have been filed by the petitioner as attorney of Nirmal Dass and Ghansham Dass as both of them were not alive when the suit was filed and as such, there was no power of attorney in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself has actively participated in the sale deed dated 23.12.2008 vide CRM-M 10902 of 2009 (O&M) -3- which the property of the Akhara has been sold to builder, namely, Pearls Township Developers Pvt. Ltd. as he has signed the sale deed as a witness. Counsel for the State has further submitted that the custody of the petitioner is required for the purpose of recovery. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Apparently, the petitioner had no authority to act on behalf of Mahant Ghansham Dass on the basis of power of attorney dated 28.10.1994 as Mahant Ghansham Dass had died on 28.1.1997. Similarly, Mahant Nirmal Dass has not been heard as he is missing for the last 7 years. There was no occasion for the Akhara to have exchanged the property and suffering a civil court decree by way of compromise in favour of the persons, who have further sold the property to the developers. Thus, the present bail application is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that any observation made in the present order shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 21.8.2009 Judge Meenu