Criminal Misc. No. M-30972 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-30972 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.11.2009 Jagdeesh Kumar .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A. K. Lamdharia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the complainant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No. 144 dated 11.10.2009, under Sections 420/120-B IPC, Police Station, City Jalalabad, District Ferozepur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased the property in question from Sharma Singh vide two registered sale deeds dated 27.9.2005 and 21.5.2007 for 16 kanals and 36 kanals, respectively. The purchase by the petitioner was duly mutated in his favour in the revenue records. The same was sold to the complainant on 18.5.2009. The FIR was lodged on 11.10.2009 finding that in fact the property was not owned by Sharma Singh, who had sold the same to the petitioner, as litigation was already pending which was decided against Sharma Singh and others and in favour of Resham Singh and others. He further submitted that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Madan Lal, who was arrested, has already been released on bail. As the petitioner was also not in knowledge of the pending litigation between Sharma Singh and others and Resham Singh and others, even he was also cheated, otherwise there was no occasion even for him to have indulged in the deal. Though the decree was passed in favour of Resham Singh and others and against Sharma Singh and others on 19.5.2007, but still the same was not given effect to in the revenue records till such time the property in dispute was sold by the petitioner to the complainant, which clearly establishes his bonafide. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Criminal Misc. No. M-30972 of 2009 [2] the case in hand is plain and simple of cheating. The petitioner was living in the same area and there is presumption that he knew about the pending litigation between his vendor with Resham Singh and others. The vendee-complainant had in fact sold his other property to buy the property in dispute and now he has been deprived of both the properties and the money as well. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the present case. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the petitioner is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. He shall also join the investigation as and when called upon for investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 26.11.2009 mk