Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishna Devi @ Kiran And Others vs State Of Haryana on 23 January, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.M.No.M-2027 of 2012(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-2027 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: January 23, 2012
Krishna Devi @ Kiran and others
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Vikram Sheoran, Advocate
for the complainant.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.4185 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-2027 of 2012 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.231, dated 25.12.2011, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Loharu, District Bhiwani.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Bhiwani, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioners for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations against petitioners-accused are that they got executed and registered sale deed regarding property of complainant in a Crl.M.No.M-2027 of 2012(O&M) -2- fraudulent manner without paying him any consideration.
It has been alleged that he had visited PNB Loharu at the instance of petitioners for getting loan and they promised to help him in getting loan from the bank and in the garb of said promise, they got his thumb impressions and photographs on some documents and, however, later on he came to know that sale deed was got executed. Petitioner no.1 is vendee, whereas petitioners no.3 and 4 are attesting witnesses of the alleged sale deed and petitioner no.2 is husband of petitioner no.1. Allegations are that all the four petitioners while acting in furtherance to their conspiracy to cheat the complainant got the sale deed executed for just `15 lacs for his land and that even the said amount has not been paid.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that `5 lacs were deposited in cash in the bank account as is clear from Annexure P3, which was withdrawn on 3.12.2011. Further contends that remaining amount was paid in cash.
On the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that in fact petitioners have taken bank pass-book and the other documents concerning his account from him and that amount of `5 lacs was deposited by the petitioners themselves on the plea that loan has been sanctioned and, however, later on he came to know that in fact no loan was sanctioned and, however, he could not explain as to whether this `5 lacs was withdrawn by complainant or not.
Be that as it may, `5 lacs were withdrawn by the complainant on the assurance of petitioners no.1 and 2 that loan was sanctioned by the bank and not as a consideration for execution of sale deed. He has taken specific plea that he has not received any amount as consideration for sale Crl.M.No.M-2027 of 2012(O&M) -3- of his land. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused.
Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners- Krishna Devi @ Kiran, Raj Kumar, Lok Ram and Duli Chand for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
23.1.2012 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge