Harmesh Rani and Others vs State of Haryana

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—By filing the present petition u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 34 dated 10.3.2012, registered under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. Petition qua petitioner No. 2 has already been dismissed vide order dated 16.8.2012, passed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is lot of delay in lodging the complaint. No recovery has been effected from petitioner No. 1. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer. He further submits that the investigation is going on.

The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioners have duped the complainant. Neither they honoured the agreement to sell, nor returned the amount received to the complainant.

Heard and perused.

The petitioner Harmesh Rani is the owner to the extent of 50% in the property in dispute i.e. house located at Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 12, Kurukshetra. As per the allegations, both the petitioners entered into an agreement with complainant Angrej Singh with regard to sell the house and received a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- from the him. The date for execution of the sale deed was extended time and again. Before execution of the sale deed in favour of the said complainant Angrej Singh, the petitioner further sold the property in question to one Shailender and Sheela, who happened to be son -in-law and the daughter of the petitioners. During investigation, it was found that the petitioners further sold the said property to one Ram Kumar for a sale consideration of Rs. 25 lacs. The petitioners in this manner has received the amount from three persons with regard to the same property. Ultimately, the property was transferred in the name of Ram Kumar, however, the possession is still with Shailender and Sheela.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in State Rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, has held as under:-

The custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order u/s 438 of Cr.P.C.

In the present case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are required. Accordingly, no case is made out to grant prearrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.