IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-12670 of 2011 Date of decision : 04.05.2011 Bant Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 26 dated 10.04.2011 under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that dispute is purely civil in nature. The petition has been falsely implicated in the case and thus, he is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of apex court reported as Suresh versus Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and Anr., 2005 AIR (SC) 1047 to contend that where the accused did not have dishonest intention at the inception of the agreement, no offence is made out. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that petitioner was owner of plot measuring 363 sq.yards. He executed an agreement to sell of land measuring 300 sq. yards with the complainant and received earnest money of Rs.4 lacs and agreed to Criminal Misc. No. M-12670 of 2011 - 2 – execute the sale deed on 30.10.2008. However, land was already pledged with State Bank of Patiala, Ahmedgarh. The petitioner executed an agreement to sell in favour of one Amarjit Singh and handed over the possession of the property to him after obtaining `15 lacs. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that allegation against the petitioner is that he had earlier pledged the plot with the bank. He, thereafter, received `4 lacs from the complainant in lieu of agreement to sell. However, he executed another agreement to sell in favour of Amarjit Singh and handed over the possession of the property to him. It is, thus, evident that contention that petitioner did not have any dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is misplaced. Ratio of the judgment in the case of Suresh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. May 04, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE 2