K.S.Bharadwaj and Another vs State

Mohd. Shamim, J.—This is an application by the petitioners for release on bail in anticipation of their arrest.

Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rajan Sharma has contended that the petitioners are innocent persons. They have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is absolutely no evidence against the petitioners. The petitioners were tenants in the disputed property under one Gurbax Kaur since April 1979. She entered into an agreement to sell the said property to the petitioners on November 2,1993 for a consideration of Rs. 9,60,000/-. The petitioners paid to her Rs. 50,000/- by way of earnest money. However, before the transaction could go through Smt. Gurbax Kaur died in January 1994. S/Shri Gajender Singh and Jaswinder Singh are the sons of late Smt. Gurbax Kaur. Shri Gajinder Singh entered into an agreement. to sell the said property with the petitioners on February 15, 1996 in respect of his half share. The petitioners paid to him Rs. 4,35,000/- through a cheque and Rs. 20,000/- in cash. Mutation has already been effected in the name of the petitioners.

Jaswinder Singh also entered into an agreement to sell the other half of the disputed property on October 18, 1996. Rs. 1,55,000/- were paid in cash and Rs. 3,00,000/- were paid through a demand draft. Thus a total sum of Rs. 9,60,000/-has been paid to them.

The petitioners subsequently sold half share which they got from Jaswinder Singh to Gurvinder Singh Randhawa. The petitioner received Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of earnest money. The petitioner tried to return the said sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to said Gurvinder Singh Randhawa through a cheque dated January 8, 1997. Shri Gurvinder Singh Randhawa avoided to receive the payment. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus contends that the petitioners are entitled to an order of bail.

Learned PP, Mr. R.D.Jolly, on the other hand, has contended that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- by misrepresenting that they were owners of the disputed property. After having made the payment the complainant found that the petitioners were not the owners of the disputed property and in fact some Mishra Bros. were the owners of the same. The petitioners have failed to hand over to the Investigating Officer the original title deeds alleged to have been executed by Jaswinder Singh in their favor so that they may be sent to CFSL for purposes of verification in order to find out as to whether the petitioners are the owners of the disputed property or not.

Learned PP has then led me through the statement of Shri Jaswinder Singh wherein he has stated before the Investigating Officer that the property was sold in favor of Mishras and he had executed the sale deed in favor of Misers and not in favor of the petitioners.

Considering the above facts and circumstances I do not think present case is a fit case for anticipatory bail. Dismissed.