High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/18140/2022dismissed

Nirmal Singh v. State Of Haryana

2022-05-09Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

CRM-M-18140 of 2022 #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18140 of 2022 Date of Decision: 09.05.2022 Nirmal Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

Present:

Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K Singla, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant. HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.147 dated 16.04.2022 under Sections 406,420,506 IPC registered at P.S Parao (Ambala Cantt), District Ambala.

FIR was registered on the complaint of one Vijay Kumar, who stated that the petitioner was known to him. The petitioner had agreed to sell a plot measuring 44.44 sq yds bearing Khasra No.14//5/2 situated in village Machhonda to the complainant for a sum of Rs.15 lacs and an agreement to sell dated 09.08.2018 was executed between them. The last date for execution of sale deed was 20.10.2021. Long date was given for execution of sale deed in view of fact that for the time being registrations of sale deeds were stopped in the area. The petitioner never executed the sale deed of the plot nor returned the money. Complainant later learnt that the plot was not in the name of the petitioner but was in the name of Suresh Pal, the brother of the petitioner.

MANOJ KUMAR 2022.05.09 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-18140 of 2022 #2# Mrs. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is a labourer. He is an illiterate person and denies the agreement to sell being executed between the petitioner and the complainant. The above argument cannot be accepted because it has come during investigation that stamp papers for the agreement were purchased by the petitioner, which bears his signatures. Later, the matter was even compromised between the parties on 19.01.2022 in the presence of witnesses whereby the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant in two instalments. The petitioner has even resiled from that compromise.

In this view of the matter, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

May 09, 2022 (Harinder Singh Sidhu) manoj Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2022.05.09 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document