NAWAB SINGH J. - (1.) REPLY on behalf of the complainant has been filed.
(2.) SMT .Sarika ­ petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in case bearing First Information Report No.743 dated June 15, 2012 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat. On the previous date of hearing, that is, August 24, 2012, this Court passed the following order:- "xxx xxx xx Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that a plot bearing No.486, Sector-24, at Panipat, was actually owned by Ravinder Walia, a Tehsildar in the State of Punjab, but in the record, it was in the name of Sethi Singh. On August 07, 2010, Ravinder Walia received Rs.51,000/- as token money to sell the aforesaid plot to the petitioner and issued receipt Annexure P-3. Vide agreement dated August 11, 2010 (Annexure P-4), Sethi Singh entered into an agreement to sell the plot to the petitioner. An amount of Rs. 7 lacs was paid through deposit in the account of Ravinder Walia as earnest money and the remaining sale consideration was to be paid by October 22, 2010. Unfortunately, Sethi Singh died on September 25, 2010. Ravinder Walia paid the amount to Haryana Development Urban Authority (HUDA) and the plot was transferred in the name of Ujagar Singh, father of Sethi Singh, vide Annexure P-11. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-14, HUDA granted permission to Ujagar Singh to transfer the plot in the name of the petitioner. Payment of entire sale-consideration was made by the petitioner after withdrawing the amount from the bank account of her father-in-law and vide Re-allotment letter Annexure P-16, the plot was transferred in her name. The payment was made in cash, because Ravinder Walia wanted it to be paid in cash and not by any other mode. xxx xxx xxx Notice of motion for 12.10.2012. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner Sharika Gupta shall be released on bail by Arresting Officer to his satisfaction. Petitioner shall abide by the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) (i) (ii) and (iii)Cr.PC."
(3.) LEARNED State counsel has stated that pursuant to the above-quoted order, the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for custodial interrogation.;