HUKUM CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is a petition under Article 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.

(2.) . Briefly stated the case of the. prosecution is that the complainant Dr. Ramesh Gupta who is the Secretary-cum-Chief Administrator of Doctors Enclave Society, Ludhiana had given a total sum of Rs.71,25,000.00 during the period 16.4.91 to 13.5.92 to the petitioner on his own behalf and on behalf of other members of the Society in connection with the purchase of 10.5 acres of land. This amount was given to the petitioner pursuant to an agreement to sell dated 13.5.91 and supplementary agreements dated 28.6.91 and 30.6.91. It has been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had induced the complainant and other members of the Society by showing certain documents including agreements to sell dated 25.8.89 between him and 27 farmers and its addendum dated 11.4.91 regarding aalleged purchase of a big piece of land from these farmers. It is further alleged that pursuant to the Agreement to Sell dated 13.5.91 and supplementary agreements dated 28.6.91 and 30.6.91, the petitioner was to execute the sale deed on or before the period of 3rd instalment of the total consideration but the petitioner has refused to execute the Sale Deed and has criminally misappropriated the abovementioned amount of Rs.71,25,000.00 . It is also alleged that on 14.4.93 when the complainant alongwith his wife approached the petitioner to honour his commitment by providing the land to the complainant as well as to other members of the Society and getting 'the document's executed, the petitioner aimed his revolver at the complainant and his wife and snatched some papers from their hands and threatend them to keep quite about the matter.

(3.) . Mr.Dinesh Mathur, the learned Senior counsel appearing on bhalf of the petitioner did not controvert the allegations that a sum of Rs.71,25,000.00 waspaidbythe complainant on his own behalf and on behalf of the members of the Society to the petitioner. He, however, submitted that on receipt of the aforesaid amount from time to time, the petitioner had also been advancing the amounts to various farmers to purchase the land, part of which was to be sold to the complainant and other members of the Society. He submitted that even the complainant in his complaint has stated that negotiations between the parties have been held from time to time. He also submitted that there was no material to show that the petitioner had induced the complainant and other doctors. The learned counsel also placed certain photo copies of the receipts to show that the petitioner had also been advancing certain amounts to purchase the land from the fanners.