AJIT VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 83 dated 31.03.2012, under Sections 406/420 IPC, registered at police station Sadar Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) THIS Court while issuing notice of motion on 30.04.2012 passed the following order:- "Contends that dispute is civil in nature and that even as per the allegations petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the flat in dispute to complainant. Further contends that petitioner has admitted having entered into the said agreement and that he was always ready to perform his part of the contract and, however, it was complainant, who did not come present before the office of the builder to get the sale deed executed. It is further contended that so far as earlier agreement executed by petitioner in favour of Smt.Rohini Chopra, the same already stood cancelled as she did not perform her part of the contract and it was only thereafter that petitioner entered into an agreement with the complainant. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 11.5.2012. However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."

(3.) IT has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that though petitioner has joined the investigation and however, recovery of amount, which was received by petitioner from complainant is yet to be effected.