JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) :- Palwinder Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.60 dated 17.04.2009, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Ambala. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 3. According to the FIR lodged by Jai Ram – complainant, he sold his land for Rs.1,28,45,000/- vide sale deed dated 13.07.2007. However, he was paid only Rs.70,00,000/- and the balance amount was swindled by complainant’s maternal uncle Dayal Singh in connivance with others. 4. The complainant made supplementary statement implicating the petitioner and one Karambir for the first time by stating that the complainant had received Rs.32,00,000/- as earnest money and the same was received in the presence of petitioner and Karambir and was placed at the house of relative of Jai Ram – complainant namely Jasmel Singh, but later on, he was paid Rs.19,00,000/- by said Jasmel Singh and balance amount of Rs.13,00,000/- is alleged to have been taken by petitioner and Karambir. 5. In the sale deed, it has been recited that a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was taken as earnest money on 26.10.2006 and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was left with vendees for being paid to mortgagee. The sale deed was effected on 13.07.2007. However, the instant FIR was registered on 17.04.2009. Even in the FIR, petitioner was not named. Supplementary statement was made by the complainant on 27.08.2009 i.e. more than four months after lodging of the FIR, when for the first time, the petitioner was implicated along with Karambir. This factual position was not controverted by learned State counsel, after seeking instructions from ASI Shamsher Singh. 6. In addition to the aforesaid, according to the sale deed, a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- only had been paid to the complainant on 26.10.2006 as earnest money, whereas the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- had been left with the vendees for payment to mortgagee. Thus, actual payment was of Rs.30,00,000/- and not of Rs.32,00,000/-, as alleged by the complainant in the supplementary statement. 7. Thus, actual payment was of Rs.30,00,000/- and not of Rs.32,00,000/-, as alleged by the complainant in the supplementary statement. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that in fact, the petitioner had lodged FIR dated 15.07.2009 for injuries caused to him against some persons, but Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station, in collusion with the accused of the said case, obtained signatures of the petitioner-complainant on blank papers and was pressurizing him to effect compromise, for which the petitioner made complaint dated 01.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) against the Station House Officer and it was thereafter, that the alleged supplementary statement dated 27.08.2009 of Jai Ram was recorded in the instant case to implicate the petitioner. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid, but without meaning to comment anything on merits, the instant petition is allowed. 9. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall comply with the conditions specified in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Presently, the petitioner is directed to join investigation on 27.10.2009 at 10:00 A.M. and continue to do so as and when required by the police. The instant order shall remain effective till one month after the filing of the charge-sheet by the police or till decision of regular bail application of the petitioner, which ever is earlier. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ------------