IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M-6567 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 10.3.2009 Bir Singh Versus State of Punjab Present:- Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, DAG, Punjab. M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral) Petitioner seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Harnam Singh, resident of 28-G BRS Nagar, Ludhiana, alleging that he has purchased two plot Nos. 356 and 458 besides two other plots. Those plots were also purchased by complianant through the petitioner Bir Singh. Petitioner had allegedly obtained a general power of attorney from the wife of complainant to look after the plot on the pretext that there was a dispute regarding plot No. 458 which had to be resolved. But the petitioner had sold all the plots through the sale deeds though the original sale deeds were still with the complainant. When the complainant had confronted the petitioner with his conduct he agreed to give one and a half acre of land situated in village Sangatpura or to pay the cost of the plots at current market rate. Petitioner had allegedly demanded Rs. 2 lac for this deed. Complainant had paid the said amount and purchased the stamp papers. But subsequently the petitioner agreed to give the complainant another piece of land situtated in village sangatpura by 5.8.2007. The complainant feeling that he had been cheated, the case has been got registered against the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No. M-6567 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if the contents of the agreement of sale Annexure P-2 are carefully perused, it would indicate that the wife of the complainant had sold the plot to the petitioner under an agreement of sale on receipt of total sale consideration of Rs.23,80,000/-. Learned State counsel has opposed the application for bail on the ground that the petitioner is involved in total six cases of similar nature. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State counsel and have gone through the record. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, it appears that the sole controversy is that under what circumstances agreement of sale dated 17.7.2006 had been executed. The petitioner claims that Plot Nos 458 and 356 had been actually sold under the agreement of sale on receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs.23,80,000/- whereas the case of the complainant is that the said document had been fabricated by cheating the complainant and his wife. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is involved in five more cases of cheating and fabrication of documents. It is also not out of place to mention here that petitioner has vehemently alleged that police is enimical towards the petitioner and that the petitioner had been found in illegal custody of the police after he had refused to oblige the police officials in getting them certain sale deeds of properties executed in their favour. Without entering into the controversy regarding enmity of the petitioner with the police officials and the other cases registered against the petitioner, it is sufficient to observe that the complainant's-wife is legal owner of the plots No. 458 and 356 mentioned in the General Power of Crl. Misc. No. M-6567 of 2009 -3- Attorney. The passing of the consideration merely on the basis of document cannot be pleaded at this stage especailly when a particular document is alleged to have been obtained by playing fraud. The investigation is at initial stage and there are prima facie allegations against the petitioner of having cheated the complainant. The pleas raised by learned counsel for the petitioner may constitute a good ground for grant of regular bail, but not extraordinary circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. March 10, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge