Crl. Misc. No. M- 26936 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 26936 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 14, 2010 Joginder Pal @ Jolly ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 76 dated 6.8.2010, under Sections 420,467,468,470,454,380,120-B of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station E Division, Amritsar. The allegation against the petitioner is that the house in question was owned by Vishwa Nath. However, the said house was sold by the petitioner in connivance with Inderjit Singh to some other person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the original owner Vishwa Nath had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as earnest money out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. As per the said agreement, the sale deed could be executed in the name of the buyer or any other person proposed by him. Crl. Misc. No. M- 26936 of 2010 (O&M) 2 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Assuming that Vishwa Nath had executed an agreement to sell the house in question in favour of the petitioner but a perusal of Annexure P-1 (agreement to sell) shows that the sale deed was to be executed by Vishwa Nath in favour of the petitioner or any other person proposed by the petitioner. It further shows that the sale deed deal had been finalized through property dealer. This does not lead to the inference that the property dealer could have got the sale deed executed by producing some other person instead of the original owner Vishwa Nath. Petitioner might be required for custodial interrogation. Dismissed. (SABINA) September 14, 2010 JUDGE Anand