IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-16162 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 26.11.2009 Charan Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yash Pal Malik, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the complainant. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present case, the petitioner had prayed for pre-arrest bail and vide order dated 3.7.2009, the said benefit was granted to him and he was directed to join investigation. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has indeed joined the investigation and the original sale deed is in possession of the prosecuting Agency. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner having joined the investigation, the order passed by this Court dated 3.7.2009 may be confirmed as he is not required for investigation purposes. Counsel for the State although admits the factum of the petitioner joining the investigation and having handed over the original sale deed to the prosecution but submits that the petitioner is unable to explain the amount of Rs.42 lacs which is alleged to have been paid by him to the complainant. This matter earlier came up for hearing on 7.8.2009 when the counsel for the petitioner had sought time to explain the sources from where Crl.Misc.No.M-16162 of 2009 -2- the money had been paid by the petitioner to the complainant. Accordingly, an application was filed by the petitioner placing on record the affidavits of Harparkash son of Sh.Pyare Lal, Ram Chander son of Shri Sheosahai, Smt.Somwati Bai wife of Vikram Singh and Harpal son of Shri Ram and their respective account statements showing the withdrawal of the amounts which had been given to the petitioner, as Annexures P-6 to P-13. On the basis of the said affidavits and account statements, counsel for the petitioner contends that Harparkash has given Rs.15 lacs, Ram Chander Rs.3 lacs, Somwati Bai Rs.5 lacs and Harpal Rs.3 lacs. He contends that as per the agreement to sell dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure P-4), an amount of Rs.20,74,000/- was received by the petitioner wherein he had agreed to sell his land to one Sh.Jai Parkash son of Sh.Piare Lal. He, on this basis, contends that a total amount of Rs.46,74,000/- was available with the petitioner to make the payment of total consideration amount of the sale deed. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner is controverted by the counsel for the complainant. Referring to the account statements of the petitioner itself, he submits that Rs.1,60,000/- has been paid by the petitioner after receipt of Rs.15 lacs which he deposited in the bank out of total amount of Rs.20,74,000/- to K&A Securities Private Limited on 6.1.2009, 9.1.2009 and 20.1.2009. He further refers to the withdrawals dated 1.12.2008 and 3.12.2008 from the account of the petitioner amounting to Rs.3 lacs and Rs.10,50,000/- respectively to contend that the petitioner was virtually left with no amount out of Rs.15 lacs which he had deposited with the bank and, therefore, the explanation put-forth by the Crl.Misc.No.M-16162 of 2009 -3- petitioner is totally devoid of any substance. He, on this basis, submits that the prayer in the present application may not be granted. He further contends that as per the records of the prosecution available with the Investigating Officer, a sum of Rs.1 lac was deposited by the petitioner with the Union Bank, Rewari for discharge of his liability on 5.12.2008. He further contends that the withdrawals which have been relied upon by the petitioner from other persons were all much prior to the date on which the sale deed was executed and, therefore, no benefit can be claimed by the petitioner qua those withdrawals. The account of Mr.Ram Chander and Smt.Somwati Bai and Mr.Harpal are in the same bank as of the petitioner and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have retained the cash amount. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. At this stage, the matter is being looked into with respect as to whether the petitioner should be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail or not. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined the investigation. It is also not in dispute that a civil suit was subsequently filed by the complainant against the petitioner challenging the validity of the sale deed in question, and the said suit is still pending before the trial Court. The original sale deed has been handed over to the prosecution and is in its possession. The petitioner has joined the investigation and as per the explanation submitted by the counsel for the petitioner which is based upon the affidavits as also the account statements of the persons who have given their affidavits, the substantial amount available with the petitioner for Crl.Misc.No.M-16162 of 2009 -4- making payment to the complainant as per the sale agreement has come- forth and, therefore, the present application deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The order dated 3.7.2009 whereby the petitioner was granted ad-interim anticipatory bail is hereby confirmed. The petitioner shall however, be bound by the conditions as enumerated under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of. November 26, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE