ANWAR AHMAD AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered against them under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Malerkotla. The allegation made against the petitioners as can be discerned from the FIR relates to a dispute, which has arisen out of an agreement to sell of a land entered into by the petitioners with the complainant.

(2.) In October 2010, Anwar Ahmad, petitioner, in connivance with his co-accused had shown one jamabandi of 2008-09 concerning agriculture land measuring 47 kanals situated at Chah Brotewala, Malerkotla with an offer to sell the same to the complainant. The complainant agreed to purchase 8 bighas and 6 biswas out of the said land. The parties entered into an agreement on 27.10.2010. An earnest money of Rs.20 lacs was paid by the complainant to the petitioners in the presence of witnesses. The sale deed was to be executed by 15.7.2011. The petitioners had also agreed to take care of the note attached with the jamabandi, showing attachment of the property and to deliver the possession of the land on payment of Rs.10 lacs more. As per the complainant, he requested the petitioners for correction of jamabandi but they kept on delaying the same and thereafter demanded Rs. 10 lacs on 11.7.2011, just before 15.7.2011 through their counsel for registering the sale deed.

(3.) The complainant remained present before the court at Malerkotla, awaiting for the petitioners till evening but they did not come present. Later on, the complainant came to learn that civil case was pending before the court at Malerkotla, concerning the dispute about the title of the petitioners over this land. Rather the appeal was finalised even upto the High Court. The title of the property in Mohammad Jameel had extinguished in view of this judgement and the revenue entries in this regard had also been cancelled. It is alleged that the petitioners had entered into agreement with the complainant knowing well the defect in their title and accordingly had received a sum of Rs.20 lacs by cheating the complainant. The present FIR was accordingly lodged by the complainant.