The power of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised in exceptional cases, and custodial interrogation may be necessary for effective investigation in certain cases.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Verma, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.166 dated 25.06.2019 registered under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') at Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad, Haryana.

2. The above-said FIR was registered on the complaint made by respondent No.2-Girraj alleging that on 16.01.2019 the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell of his land measuring 7 kanal 13 marla, situated at Mauja Ghughera, Tehsil and District Palwal, in his favour for a sale consideration of Rs.43,90,000/- and on the basis of said agreement, the complainant had also entered into an agreement to sell of the said land in favour of one Jai Parkash s/o Girraj but when he asked the petitioner to get executed the sale deed of the said land in his favour, the petitioner demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as he was in need of the said amount for his personal use. In the month of February, 2019 the complainant had given Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner in presence of his nephew-Manoj and the petitioner assured him to get executed the sale deed of the land in the Nav Ratras. When the complainant along with his nephew-Manoj again asked the petitioner to get executed the sale deed of the land, the petitioner asked them to come at his house with an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-. On 05.04.2019 the complainant sent his nephew-Manoj along with his uncle-Om Parkash to the office of petitioner with an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- where they came to know that the office was in the name of Shiv Hari Singla. The petitioner had forcibly taken the amount of Rs.17,00,000/- from them. The petitioner had grabbed total amount of Rs.26,00,000/- from the complainant and also threatened to kill him as well as his family members. Now, apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has filed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of the complainant and business partners of the petitioner, Shiv Hari Singla, who is the original owner of the land in question. Shiv Hari Singla executed an agreement to sell on 12.02.2018 in favour of the petitioner and has given rights to the petitioner that on the basis of said agreement the petitioner can deal with the property with the condition that after dealing, he (Shiv Hari Singla) himself will execute the sale deed of the land in favour of the purchaser, on the basis of which the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant. On 16.01.2019, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner as an earnest money and after that the complainant has further entered into an agreement to sell with one Jai Parkash vide agreement to sell dated 31.01.2019 and has received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him without knowledge, consent and permission of the petitioner. In order to throw the petitioner out of this deal, the complainant and Shiv Hari Singla connived together and registered the present FIR against the petitioner. In the FIR it is clearly mentioned that the complainant had paid amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.17,00,000/- to Abhishek son of Shiv Hari Singla. The land is situated at District Palwal and the agreement is also alleged to be executed at Palwal, however, the FIR in question has been registered at Faridabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has also made complaints against the complainant-Girraj and Shiv Hari Singla to the Commissioner of Police, to the Economic Cell, Palwal and on CM Window, Palwal but no action was taken on his complaints. Learned counsel further contends that the present is a case of civil nat