Rajinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....

Criminal Misc. No.M-45906 of 2018 Date of decision:17.10.2018 Rajinder Singh

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.214 dated 21.12.2017 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC at Police Station Division No.8, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that the FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of application filed by Rajinder Pal. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he entered into an agreement to sell the land measuring 120 Kanals 15 Marlas on the basis of another agreement executed by accused with other owners. The deal was finalised and `1 Lakh was earlier paid as earnest money and then `24 Lakhs were given. As per HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.10.17 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-45906 of 2018 [2] the allegation, the date for executing the sale deed was extended. Later on, the accused-petitioner represented that one of the vendors is abroad and sale deed will be executed after she comes from abroad. The FIR further states that when the complainant made inquiry, it was found that most of the land agreed to sell to the complainant by the petitioner was sold by the original owners.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner has received `25 Lakhs as earnest money; he has neither returned the money nor he got executed the sale deed from the original owners and the allegation against the petitioner that he is one of the main accused and, therefore, he is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

October 17, 2018.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.10.17 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh