Crl. Misc. No.M-17688 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-17688 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 6, 2011 Joginder @ Gindi …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Nanak Singh, complainant alleging that he had sold 50 sq. yards of land to Naranjan Singh but his photograph was clicked twice and sale deed of his entire land was executed by Naranjan Singh and co-accused of the petitioner. So far as petitioner is concerned, counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and that no part has Crl. Misc. No.M-17688 of 2011 [2] been attributed to him in the act of getting the sale deed fabricated in favour of original owner Naranjan Singh. Petitioner alongwith other accused has allegedly hatched the conspiracy to deprive the complainant of his property on which 7 shops and two rooms stand constructed. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has now purchased the property in dispute vide sale deed dated March 12, 2011. State counsel has informed this Court that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has been involved in total 29 cases w.e.f. the year 1984. List of the FIRs alongwith their copies have been made available for perusal. The petitioner has been involved in a number of cases of cheating and forgery. Out of 29 cases, there are four cases in which the petitioner is accused of having committing cheating or forgery. I have carefully considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is bonafide purchaser having purchase property for consideration of Rs.18.26 lacs. Taking into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner, it will be premature to form an opinion that the petitioner is a boanafide purchaser. The investigation is at initial stage. The role played by all the conspirators is yet to be appreciated during the pendency of the investigation. I do not find any ground to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. Crl. Misc. No.M-17688 of 2011 [3] September 6, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE