Crl. Misc. No. M-24040 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-24040 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.01.2011. Prem Midha .......Petitioner Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh. 1. Whether the reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Raman Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. ..... Alok Singh, J. (Oral). This is the petition seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 125 dated 13.5.2010 under sections 420/506/34/120-B IPC Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready to refund the amount/sale consideration, received by the petitioner from the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as Mr. Crl. Misc. No. M-24040 of 2010 -2- Ram Pal Verma, Advocate on the instructions of Mr. Sushil Kumar, ASI, who is present in person in the court, have vehemently argued that the plot which was allegedly sold to the complainant does not exist on the spot. Learned counsel for the complainant has also stated that even Municipal Council, Dera Bassi has issued a letter to the effect that the plot in question does not exist in the site plan. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused states that the plot does exist at the spot. In the opinion of this Court, serious question is involved and allegation against the accused is that he has cheated the complainant by selling the property, which in fact does not exist. Hence, custodial interrogation is must and the accused is not entitled for the discretioniary relief of anticipatory bail. Interim order passed by this Court dated 19th August, 2010 is hereby recalled. The petition is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE January 10, 2011 gurpreet