Crl. Misc. No. M-945 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-945 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.4.2011 Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Gurgaon City, District Gurgaon, vide FIR No.330 dated 17th June, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, from the allegations in the FIR, no offence against the petitioner is made out. According to him, the dispute is purely civil in nature and thus, petitioner deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that the petitioner had executed a power of attorney in 1994 and had sold the plot in question to Paramjit on 19.9.1994 and thereafter he had entered into an agreement to sell the Crl. Misc. No. M-945 of 2011 2 plot to Mahipal for Rs.2.5 lacs. According to learned State counsel, in the meantime, plot had been alienated by Paramjit and further to another vendee. He submits that in view of the nature of allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that the petitioner is alleged to have sold the plot to Paramjit in 1994 and thereafter entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant Mahi Pal for Rs.2.5 lacs and received the entire amount of sale consideration. In view of the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that he is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Apart from the fact that he is alleged to have duped the complainant, it appears that the plot sold to him had, in fact, already been alienated by the petitioner. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 27.4.2011 'rajpal'