CRM No. M-11378 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-11378 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2009 Darshan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. GS Toor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered against him under Sections 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, vide FIR No.14 dated 15th February, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are totally false. There is an attempt to implicate the petitioner by claiming his name to be Bhola Singh while his actual name is Darshan Singh. Moreover, the alleged agreement to sell has not been executed by the petitioner nor any money has been received by him from the complainant. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that allegation against the petitioner is serious and his custodial interrogation is required. According to the counsel, the petitioner is involved in other cases as CRM No. M-11378 of 2009 2 well. Moreover, recovery is yet to be effected from him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The allegations against the petitioner, as mentioned in the FIR, are serious in nature. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner alongwith co-accused made him part with Rs.2,25,000/- in consideration for a sale agreement. It was later on found that the petitioner was not the owner of the land, in respect of which, the sale- agreement was executed. When the complainant demanded his money back, the petitioner flatly refused to do so. Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for grant of concession of pre-arrest bail. The stand of the State is that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in number of other cases of similar nature. The petition is thus devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 07, 2009 'rajpal'