In the High Court for the States of Pun jab and Haryana at
Chandigarh.
Decided on July 01,2009.
Khem Singh Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana Respondent.
Present: Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate,for the petitioner
Mr.Partap Singh,Sr.DAG,Haryana.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
On a complaint filed under Section 156 (3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure,1973 (in short, ‘Cr.PC), a case under Sections
420/467/468/471/419/120-B of Indian Penal Code , was registered
vide FIR No. 95 dated 06.2.2009 at Police Station, Faridabad Central,
District Faridabad., against as many as five persons, namely Khem
Singh, Beg Raj, Anil, Harikant Sharma, Advocate and one unknown
person, on the allegations that in conspiracy with each other, land
measuring 71 kanal 02 marlas situated in village Alipur Shikar Gah,
Faridabad owned by one Shiv Sahay son of Kanhaya son of
Bhura,resident of the same village, who is permanently missing since
1911 from Delhi, has been sold by accused No.5 (unknown person)
impersonating as Shiv Sahay in favour of Khem Singh (petitioner)
vide registered sale deed No.20889 dated 12.12.2008 which has been
witnessed by Beg Raj and Anil who have been identified by Harikant
Sharma Advocate.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner filed Bail
application No.1 of 2009 before the Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court), Faridabad, which has been dismissed on 15.4.2009. Aggrieved
against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present bail
application in which notice of motion was issued on 2.6.2009 for
09.6.2009, but interim relief was declined. On 9.6.2009, the case
was adjourned for today.
Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, learned counsel for the petitioner
has vehemently argued that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of
the land in question for a sum of Rs.20 lacs and in fact, he has been
cheated by the seller.
On the other hand , learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-State has contended that out of five accused
mentioned herein above, Beg Raj and Harish have been arrested on
5.3.2009 and 24.3.2009 and the other two accused Anil and Harikant
Sharma have not been arrested so far. It is also argued that
admittedly, the land in dispute is owned by Shiv Sahay who has
been recorded as dead in the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, and
the sale and purchase of his land was prohibited. Learned counsel
for the respondent-State has argued that the petitioner has
committed a serious offence as it is not reflected from the sale deed
that amount of Rs. 20 lacs was paid before the Sub Registrar.
Keeping in view the nature of offence but without
commenting on the merit of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the bail
application is hereby dismissed.
July 01,2009 (RakeshKumar Jain) RR Judge