S. C. Jain ( 1 ) BY way of this application the petitioner prays forrelease on bail in anticipation of his arrest for the offences under Sections420, 468, 471. 423 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code in F. I. R. No. 474/90, Policestation Hari Nagar, New Delhi. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution this petitioner entered into anagreement to Sell the property in question in favour of K. . L. Chhabra. Asum of Rs. 60,000 was paid to the petitioner on different dates i. e. Rs. 20,000 on 17. 4. 90, Rs. 30,000 on 20. 4. 90 and Rs. 10. 000 on 19. 6. 90. ( 3 ) THE execution of the sale deed could not take place. A settlement was arrived at between Mr. K. C. Chibber, the petitioner with Mr. K. L. Chhabra. On 2. 11. 90, the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 70,000 whichwas post dated for 5. 12. 90 drawn on the State Bank of India, Jaipur forrefund of the earnest money of Rs. 60,000 plus the penalty of Rs. 10,000 to Mr. K. L. Chhabra by way of settlement with the assurance that the chequewould be encashed positively. That cheque was not encashed as there wereno funds available in the bank account of the petitioner and rather the payment of the cheque was stopped by the present petitioner. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lao has drawn my attention towards the fact that the co-accused i. e. Rajiv Chibber, son of the petitioner, already stands admitted to bail by the order of the Hon ble Supremecourt dated 30. 6. 92. According to him, the other co-accused, Mr. Subhashchibber is also on anticipatory bail and, therefore, this accused is also entitled to be released on bail in anticipation of his arrest. According to thelearned Counsel from the averments made in the F. I. R. no offences undersections 420, 467, 468, 423 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code are made out, as according to him the complainant did not wait till 5. 12. 90 and moved the policeauthorities taking action against him inasmuch as he was summoned by thepolice officers of the P. S. Hari Nagar by sending a notice under Section 160 Cr. P. C. on 13. 11. 90. 12. 90 and moved the policeauthorities taking action against him inasmuch as he was summoned by thepolice officers of the P. S. Hari Nagar by sending a notice under Section 160 Cr. P. C. on 13. 11. 90. It is alleged that the petitioner was humiliated andtortured and this led the petitioner to stop the payment of the cheque issuedto the complainant. Learned Counsel submits that it is a case for filing of acivil suit and that the criminal proceedings cannot be used for forcing him topay this amount of Rs. 70,000 for getting him released on bail. Accordingto the earlier order passed by Saharya, J. on 13. 2. 91 rejecting his bail application is not on merits and that bail application was rejected only on theground that Rs. 70,000 were not paid as undertaken earlier. He submittedthat this is not a precedent which should be relied upon while deciding thisbail application on merits. He relied upon the decilion of the Supremecourt in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, [air 1989 S. C. 38] in support of his contention. The learned Counsel also argued that two cheques amounting to Rs. 72,000 i. e. for Rs. 40,000 drawn on Canara Bank, Gurgaon and Rs. 32,000 drawn on United Bank of India,gurgaon were deposited by the petitioner in the bank on 5. 12. 1990 and thisfact has not been taken note of by the Hon ble Judge while rejecting the bailapplication According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner has alreadybeen taking part in the investigation and as no offence is made out againsthim as per the averments made in the F. I. R. , so he is entitled to be releasedon anticipatory bail as has been done in the case of other co-accused. ( 5 ) MR. R. K. . Bahri, learned State Counsel strongly opposes the bailapplication moved by the petitioner and drew my attention towards variousfacts. According to the learned Counsel from the very beginning the intention of the petitioner was dishonest and he misrepresented the facts whileentering into the Agreement to Sell. He also put reliance upon the forgedand fabricated documents for getting, the complainant to believe that thepetitioner was owner in possession of the property for which he had enteredinto the Agreement to Sell. According to the learned Counsel from the very beginning the intention of the petitioner was dishonest and he misrepresented the facts whileentering into the Agreement to Sell. He also put reliance upon the forgedand fabricated documents for getting, the complainant to believe that thepetitioner was owner in possession of the property for which he had enteredinto the Agreement to Sell. According to him as per the petitioner sown application he was never in possession of the property which heagreed to sell on 17. 4. 90 and he was also not owner of the sameand it is this fact which had prevented him from executing the saledeed, though he had received the earnest money. It is only laterthat he issued a cheque for Rs. 70,000 knowing fully well that thecheque will not be encashed, as he was not having sufficient funds in thebank account. The cheques allegedly deposited by him were not foundentered into the records of the bank on 5. 12. 90 as per the verification gotdone from the State Bank of India, Jaipur. Admittedly, the payment ofthis cheque was stopped by the accused and this remained dishonoured. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel further submits that by giving wrong assurance before the Court that he would return back the amount received hegot the benefit of interim bail, but he did not honour his commitment whichled to the rejection of his interim bail. Learned State Counsel submits thatno new grounds have been urged which would entitle this petitioner toanticipatory bail and that this application deserved to be rejected forthwith. ( 7 ) AS far as the facts are concerned, there is not much difference. Rs. 60,000 were admittedly received by this petitioner as earnest money forthe sale of property No. BE-80, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The brother ofthis petitioner, Mr. S. S. Chibber was also having interest in this property andadmittedly, the sale deed could not be executed and the Agreement to Sellcould not be honoured, as the petitioner was not in a position to get thesame transferred and that is why he gave a cheque for Rs. 70,000 whilereturning the earnest money of Rs. 60,000 plus Rs. 10,000 as penalty andthe cheque was dated 5. 12. 90. 70,000 whilereturning the earnest money of Rs. 60,000 plus Rs. 10,000 as penalty andthe cheque was dated 5. 12. 90. This cheque remained dishonoured as itspayment was stopped and as per the verification made from the bank thesaid account was not operated upon for the last more than 2 years and thebalance as on date was Rs. 373. 03. There were no entries for the chequesof Rs. 40. 000 and Rs. 32,000 allegedly deposited by the accused in the bankaccount, meaning thereby that the intention of the petitioner was not bonafide, while taking the plea of deposit of these cheques. No doubt it is truethat no party can be forced to pay a particular amount to the complaintwhile granting bail, but when a party i. e. the petitioner comes with an offerfor payment of Rs. 70,000 and if that offer is accepted by the opposite partyby way of settlement, the petitioner cannot resile from that offer. Whatevermay be the position the intention of the petitioner does not appear to bebona fide. Regarding admitting the other co-accused on bail by Hon blesupreme Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is pointed outthat those two co-accused are not the real parties to the case. It is thispetitioner, Mr. K. C. Chibber, who has entered into the Agreement to Sellwith the complainant. Mr. K. L. Chhabra. It is he who on whose behalf theamount has been received. The other two co-accused have nothing to dowith the case except that on one occasion, Mr. Rajiv Chibber, son of thepetitioner, collected Rs. 10,000 from the purchaser on bahalf of his father,mr. K. C. Chibber. The orders releasing them on anticipatory bail do nothelp this petitioner, as far as the role allegedly played by him is concerned. This accused has not gone in appeal against the order passed by Sabarya, J. and it is still operating whereby his request for anticipatory bail was rejected. No new grounds have been brought before me entitling him to be released onanticipatory bail. ( 8 ) IT is well settled that the power of anticipatory bail has to beexercised sparingly and in exceptional cases. Although the power appearsto be unguided, it is in fact required to be exercised subject to limitationimposed by Section 437 on the power of granting bail. In addition to thelimitations incorporated in Section 437, the petitioner must make out aspecial case for getting anticipatory bail. Although the power appearsto be unguided, it is in fact required to be exercised subject to limitationimposed by Section 437 on the power of granting bail. In addition to thelimitations incorporated in Section 437, the petitioner must make out aspecial case for getting anticipatory bail. An indirect use of the power togrant bail would be an abuse of the judicial process and would shake theconfidence of the general public in judiciary. Anticipatory bail cannot begranted in the absence of a specific accusation. While granting anticipatorybail the Court must strike a balance so that individuals may be protectedfrom unnecessary humiliation and the faith of the public in the administration of justice is not shaken. ( 9 ) IN the present circumstances of the case, and keeping in view theconduct of the present petitioner, I am not inclined to order the release ofthis accused on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in this case. Thisapplication for anticipatory bail is, therefore, dismissed.