Asha Devi vs State of H. P.

Kuldip Singh, J.—This is an application u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure. for releasing the Petitioner on bail in FIR No. 257/2011 registered on 07.08.2011 at Police Station, Indora, under Sections 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 Indian Penal Code. The status report filed and the same has been perused.

It has been stated in the application that Pushppal Singh complainant appointed Jaswinder Singh as his Power of Attorney vide registered deed which was cancelled. It is the case of the police that Jaswinder Singh in connivance with the Petitioner alienated the land along with house of complainant fraudulently for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- against actual value of the land and house over Rs. 12,00,000/- and thereby cheated the complainant. On these allegations, the case has been registered. The Petitioner apprehends her arrest in view of registration of the case. It has been stated that Petitioner is innocent, she has been falsely implicated in the case. Pushppal Singh had entered into an agreement to sell with Jaswinder Singh on 27.01.1999, a copy of agreement has been filed with the application. In lieu of the said agreement to sell, the complainant had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Jaswinder Singh. The complainant through Power of Attorney had authorized Jaswinder Singh to execute an agreement to sell as well as to execute sale deed in favour of purchaser.

In the year 2006, Jaswinder Singh while acting under the authority so granted through the General Power of Attorney dated 23.02.2001 executed an agreement to sell with one Karam Chand, father-in-law, of the Petitioner, a copy of agreement dated 17.01.2006 has been filed with the application. On the basis of the said agreement to sell, sale deed dated 11.05.2011 was executed.

The Petitioner has small children and there is no-one in the family to take care of them. The detention of the Petitioner would not advance the cause of justice in any manner. The Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of vested interests. The Petitioner is ready to join the investigation. It has been stated that Petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The prayer has been made for grant of bail u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure.

The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report in which it has been stated that the complainant had appointed Jaswinder Singh his Power of Attorney on 23.02.2001 which was cancelled on 07.10.2009, but Jaswinder Singh used the said Power of Attorney and sold the land and house of the complainant worth Rs. 12,00,000/- for Rs. 20,000/- vide sale deed dated 11.05.2011. It has been stated that Jaswinder Singh and Petitioner in connivance with each other cheated the complainant. The prayer has been made for dismissal of the bail application.

I have perused the police file. In the sale deed dated 11.05.2011, there is no reference of agreement dated 17.01.2006 vide which the complainant allegedly agreed to sell his property to Karam Chand for Rs. 3,00,000/-. The sale deed dated 11.05.2011 is for Rs. 20,000/-. Jaswinder Singh was appointed Power of Attorney by complainant on 23.02.2001 by registered document and the said Power of Attorney was cancelled on 07.10.2009. The deed of cancellation dated 07.10.2009 is also registered as per the Investigating Agency. The registration of the document is notice to general public. The Petitioner despite the cancellation of Power of Attorney on 07.10.2009 got executed the sale deed of the property of the complainant on the basis of Power of Attorney dated 23.02.2001. It has been stated that Jaswinder Singh has absconded. The Investigating Agency has attributed connivance of both the accused. The investigation is at an early stage. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case for grant of bail u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.