ASLAM KHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Aslam Khan has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.94 dtd. 30/5/2015 under Ss. 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station - Mattaur, Distt. SAS Nagar (Mohali).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas he was working as driver with one Naresh Goyal. As per the allegations in the FIR, an amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 was received by said Naresh Goyal. Petitioner had signed the agreement to sell under good faith being the employee of Naresh Goyal, whereas he was neither the owner of the property nor he had received the money. Learned counsel also submits that co-accused Neeraj Gupta has been released on anticipatory bail by the trial Court.

(3.) Learned State counsel has disputed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he had executed the agreement to sell. An amount was also paid by the complainant. Learned State counsel further submits that the main accused namely Naresh Goyal, who had received the amount, filed anticipatory bail i.e. CRM-M No.17991 of 2016 and it was withdrawn on 31/8/2016. Said Naresh Goyal was declared proclaimed offender in the other case. Learned State counsel further submits that earlier the case was adjourned as the petitioner wanted to settle the dispute with the complainant but he did not make any efforts to settle the dispute. The present petitioner is the main accused as he had signed the agreement to sell and he is a member of a gang involved in a number of cases and complaints. The petitioner entered into agreement to sell with the complainant and allured him to purchase the plot. An amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 was received, whereas he was not owner of the plot. A false plea has been taken that he was working with Naresh Goyal. There was connivance between the petitioner and co-accused Naresh Goyal.