High CourtsSingle Bench

Salinder Singh @ Surender Singh @ Billa vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 7 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 P&H CK 0119

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 406, 420, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 40038 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 388 words

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J

This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 117 dated

02.08.2020, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the IPC (Section 120-B added later on) at Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as per the allegations in the FIR, co-accused Karamjeet Kaur entered into an agreement to sell on

14.05.2019 for sale of agricultural land in favour of the complainant and received an amount of Rs. 21 Lakh as earnest money in few installments. The

stipulated date for execution of sale deed was also extended by receiving the earnest money in installments. Later on, the complainant was informed

by Karamjeet Kaur that Deputy Commissioner has granted stay over the land and she cannot execute the sale deed. It is further stated in FIR that

complainant, thereafter, came to know that Karamjeet Kaur has already entered into a previous agreement to sell with one Sachin Kumar on

12.03.2017, who has also filed a suit for specific performance of said agreement to sell. Thus, the complainant was cheated of Rs. 21 Lakh by co-

accused Karamjeet Kaur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is a witness to the said agreement to sell, however,

there is no such allegation that he has identified any wrong person.

Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is not the beneficiary of the said agreement to sell; he is in judicial custody since 22.09.2020 and his

custodial interrogation is no more required.

Learned State counsel has not disputed the factual position, however, submitted that after the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Karamjeet

Kaur was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 25.09.2020 passed in CRM-M-29676-2020, she could not be arrested so far.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the fact that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he is a witness to said

agreement to sell and he is in judicial custody since 22.09.2020; the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail

on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate, concerned.