PANKAJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner who had entered into an agreement to purchase property interpolated the agreement and changed the date of compliance from 28.4.2005 to 28.4.2006 and wrongly mentioned that possession was given to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction wherein interim injunction was granted but later application for injunction was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession and appeal is said to be pending against the said order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner says that question whether the date was changed in the agreement to sell or transfer of possession was wrongly mentioned are matters of investigation or trial and arrest of the petitioner is not called for. It is stated that the petitioner is willing to join investigation and face proceedings in accordance with law. It is also stated that the petitioner has joined investigation earlier also. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State.

(3.) Having regard to the circumstances of the case and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, petitioner is granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of investigation or three months whichever is later during which the petitioner will be free to apply for regular bail to the concerned court in accordance with law.