Mohd, Shamim ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the petitioners for release on bailin anticipation of their arrest. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rajan Sharma has contended thatthe petitioners are innocent persons. They have been falsely implicated in thepresent case. There is absolutely no evidence against the petitioners. The petitionerswere tenants in the disputed property under one Gurbax Kaur since April, 1979. Sheentered into an agreement to sell the said property to the petitioners on 2/11/1993 for a consideration of Rs. 9,60,000. 00. The petitioners paid to her Rs. 50,000. 00 by way of earnest money. However, before the transaction could go through Smt. Gurbax Kaur died in January, 1994. S/shri Gajender Singh andjaswinder Singh are the sons of late Smt. Gurbax Kaur. Shri Gajinder Singh enteredinto an agreement to sell the said property with the petitioners on 15/02/1996in respect of his half share. The petitioners paid to him Rs. 4,35,000. 00 through acheque and Rs. 20,000. 00 in cash. Mutation has already been effected in the name ofthe petitioners. ( 3 ) JASWINDER Singh also entered into an agreement to sell the other half of thedisputed property on 18/10/1996. Rs. 1,55,000. 00 were paid in cash and Rs. 3,00,000. 00 were paid through a demand draft. Thus a total sum of Rs. 9,60,000. 00 hasbeen paid to them. ( 4 ) THE petitioners subsequently sold half share which they got from Jaswindersingh to Gurvinder Singh Randhawa. The petitioner received Rs. 1,00,000. 00 by wayof earnest money. The petitioner tried to return the said sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00to saidgurvinder Singh Randhawa through acheque dated 8/01/1997. Shri Gurvindersingh Randhawa avoided to receive the payment. Learned Counsel for the petitionersthus contends that the petitioners are entitled to an order of bail. ( 5 ) LEARNED PP, Mr. R. D. Jolly, on the other hand, has contended that thepetitioners in furtherance of their common intention cheated the complainant to thetune of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 by mis-representing that they were owners of the disputedproperty. Afterhaving made the payment the complainant found that the petitionerswere not the owners of the disputed property and in fact some Mishra Bros. werethe owners of the same. 1,00,000. 00 by mis-representing that they were owners of the disputedproperty. Afterhaving made the payment the complainant found that the petitionerswere not the owners of the disputed property and in fact some Mishra Bros. werethe owners of the same. The petitioners have failed to hand over to the Investigatingofficer the original title deeds alleged to have been executed by Jaswinder Singh intheir favour so that they may be sent to CFSL for purposes of verification in orderto find out as to whether the petitioners are the owners of the disputed property ornot. ( 6 ) LEARNED PP has then led me through the statement of Shri Jaswinder Singhwherein he has stated before the Investigating Officer that the property was sold infavour of Mishras and he had executed the sale deed in favour of Misras and notin favour of the petitioners. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the above facts and circumstances, I do not think present caseis a fit case for anticipatory bail. Dismissed.