Hajari Lal vs State of Haryana

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—This order shall dispose of CRM No. M-11640 of 2014 titled as (Hajari Lal Vs. State of Haryana) and CRM No. M-11980 of 2014(Rishi Vs. State of Haryana) as both these petitions have been filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s) in case FIR No. 105 dated 03.03.2014, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Indri, District Karnal.

Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

It may be briefly noticed that version of the prosecution is that the complainant had contacted petitioner Rishi Sharma, who is stated to be a commission agent for the purposes of purchasing land and in this regard, Rishi Sharma had shown a certain parcel of land belonging to Jagdeep Singh. Jagdeep Singh in turn, is stated to have agreed to sell the land on the strength of an earlier agreement to sell entered by him with the original owner of the land i.e. Hajari Lal i.e. petitioner in CRM No. M-11640 of 2014. It is further alleged that the complainant was not satisfied with such arrangement and under such situation, Hajari Lal had furnished an assurance with regard to the deal going through. Thereafter an agreement to sell was entered into between the complainant and Jagdeep Singh regarding the piece of land on 11.03.2013. In a nut-shell, the entire allegations arise on account of non-execution of the sale deed as also the earnest money having not been returned to the complainant.

During the course of arguments, it has gone uncontroverted that the earnest money in question had been paid by the complainant to Jagdeep Singh. There was no entrustment of any money to either Hajari Lal or Rishi Sharma i.e. the petitioners in these two connected petitions. It is also not disputed that it was Jagdeep Singh co-accused, who had issued a cheque No. 042498 drawn on HDFC Bank, Chandigarh for an amount of 22,81,000/- to the complainant towards part repayment of the earnest money that he had received. Such cheque is stated to have bounced thereafter.

Jagdeep Singh main accused has concededly been granted the benefit of regular bail by the Sessions Court. Furthermore, learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Daya Nand would apprise the Court that the present petitioners, namely, Rishi and Hajari Lal have otherwise, joined investigation.

In the light of the factual matrix noticed here-in-above, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners in these two connected petitions would not be warranted.

Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Order dated 02.04.2014 passed in CRM No. M-11640 of 2014 and order dated 07.04.2014 passed in CRM No. M-11980 of 2014 are made absolute.

Petitions disposed of.