Criminal Misc. No.M-633 of 2008 (O&M). -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision : 15.7.2008 1. Criminal Misc. No.M-633 of 2008 (O&M). Nirbhai Singh and others ..... Petitioners. vs. State of Punjab ..... Respondent. 2. Criminal Misc. No.M-1528 of 2008 (O&M). Lakha Singh ... Petitioner. vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal. Present: Mr.Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-633 of 2008. Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-1528 of 2008. Mr.Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.Tajinder Joshi, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of two Criminal Misc. Nos.M-633 and M-1528 of 2008. The petitioners Nirbhai Singh, Ranjit Singh and Parwana Singh agreed to sell their land to Lakha Singh petitioner and received earnest money. Lakha Singh, thereafter, executed an agreement to sell with the complainant Tek Singh. It is alleged that at the time of registration of sale- deed, the documents were submitted before the Sub-Registrar, Longowal and sale consideration amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- was also paid to the petitioners in cash before the Sub-Registrar but because of the objection raised by Lakha Singh, the sale-deed was not registered as he produced a stay order passed by the court in his favour restraining the petitioners from alienating the land. It is further alleged that the amount so paid to petitioners Nirbhai Singh, Ranjit Singh and Parwana Singh was taken away by petitioner Lakha Singh and another person accompanying him. The net Criminal Misc. No.M-633 of 2008 (O&M). -2- result of the entire episode was that the complainant could not get the sale- deed registered and he was deprived of his money as well. Learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant submitted that if on account of interim stay, the sale-deed was not registered in favour of the complainant, the amount paid by him in cash before the Sub-Registrar was required to be returned back, but the petitioners in connivance with each other misappropriated the amount of Rs. 80,00,000/-. Be that as it may, without opining on the merits of the controversy which may affect the case of either parties during trial, in view of the above factual matrix, I do not find these to be fit cases for grant of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. 15.7.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge