NARENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose off two bail petitions i.e CRM-M-31529- 2023 titled as "Narender @ Narender Yadav Vs. State of Haryana" and CRM-M-47986-2023 titled as "Chetan Chauhan Vs. State of Haryana", whereby the petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail to them in case arising out of FIR No.195 dtd. 28/5/2023 registered under Ss. 420,406 and 120-B of IPC, Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari, Haryana.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner namely Narender @ Narender Yadav (petitioner in CRM-M-31529-2023) contended that as per the allegations levelled by the complainant, Vikram Singh, co-accused had entered into an agreement to sell dtd. 8/1/2021 with the complainant, however, subsequently, Vikram Singh had sold his land to a lady namely Kavita Yadav vide the registered sale deed No.1957 dtd. 13/1/2021. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was merely an attesting witness of the agreement to sell dtd. 8/1/2021.Learned counsel further contended that it has been falsely alleged that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.60,00,000.00 in cash, which is highly unbelievable and the complainant had not been able to substantiate the said allegation with some documentary evidence. Learned counsel further contended that even the case was based on documentary evidence and the documents have been collected by the police during the course of investigation. Consequently, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not serve any meaningful purpose.

(3.) Still further, learned counsel for petitioner namely Chetan Chauhan (petitioner in CRM-M-47896-2023) vehemently argued that it was a civil dispute between the parties, which has been given the colour of criminal offence by the complainant illegally. Learned counsel further submitted that the sale deed was executed on 13/1/2021, whereas the FIR in the present case was got registered by the complainant on 28/5/2023, after a long delay. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was an attesting witness and other than being an attesting witness, no specific allegations have been made against the present petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation in the present case and no purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars.