Gopal Krishan Hooda vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As, identical points for consideration to grant the concession of anticipatory bail or otherwise to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions bearing CRM No. M-24786 of 2013 titled as Gopal Krishan Hooda Versus State of Punjab(for brevity "the 1st case") and CRM No. M-1267 of 2014, titled as Vipan Singla and another Versus State of Punjab(for short "the 2nd case"), arising out of the same FIR/case, by means of this common decision, to avoid the repetition. Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the record are that, the plot bearing No. 529, Sector-21, Panchkula, was allotted to the parents of complainant-Ashwani Kumar Bhagat son of Late Sh. Gurbachan Dass Bhagat. After their death, the plot was transferred in his name vide Memo No. 13977 dated 22.09.2003, but the conveyance-deed was not executed in his favour by HUDA. According to the complainant that, in October, 2005, petitioner-Gopal Krishan Hooda, resident of Jagdish Colony, Rohtak, came to his house at Amritsar along with Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, property dealer and asked him to sell the plot. The complainant agreed to sell the plot for a sum of Rs. 1,24,25,000/-. An agreement to sell was executed in this respect. Consequently, the complainant received a sum of Rs. 15 lacs by way of cheque and cash as earnest money. He completed the formalities of the transfer of the plot and sent the same to the petitioners. The petitioner-Gopal Krishan Hooda was stated to have submitted the transfer proforma in the office of HUDA on 08.11.2005 in the names of other co-accused Vipan Singla and Mohit Singla sons of Satpal Singla.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, the complainant claimed that all the accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy and have illegally transferred his plot in the manner depicted here-in-above. In the background of these allegations, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioners along with their other co-accused, namely, Smt. Yashwati wife of, and Nipan Hooda @ Vipan Hooda(already on bail), son of, Gopal Krishan Hooda, Chander Kanta wife of, and Mohit Singla & Vipan Singla, sons of, Satpal Singla, vide FIR No. 173 dated 20.08.2008 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar.

At the very outset, it will not be out of place to mention here that, Yashwati and Nipan Hooda @ Vipan Hooda, co-accused of the petitioners, were granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar by way of order dated 02.01.2014. However, having exercised and remained unsuccessful before the Additional Sessions Judge, now petitioner-Gopal Krishan Hooda son of Rampat Singh has preferred the 1st petition, whereas petitioners-Vipan Singla & Mohit Singla, sons of Satpal Singla, have filed the 2nd petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in this Court, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

As is evident from the record that, the complainant has entered into an agreement to sell dated 27.09.2005(Annexure P-2) in respect of the plot in question and received an amount of Rs. 15 lacs as earnest money by way of cheque and cash. As per clause 3 of the agreement to sell, the complainant was required to obtain No Due Certificate (NDC) from the competent authority and to complete other documents before the execution of final sale-deed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended with some amount of vehemence that instead of applying for NDC in the names of the petitioners, he himself obtained NDC (Annexure P-3) in the names of petitioners-Vipan Singla and Mohit Singla duly signed by him. The petitioner-Gopal Krishan Hooda appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Panchkula on 30.12.2005 for registration of the sale-deed and got attested his affidavit(Annexure P-4) before the Executive Magistrate, Panchkula. According to the petitioners, they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but it was the complainant, who did not return to execute the sale-deed. A legal notice(Annexure P-5) was served on the complainant. The petitioner moved a complaint(Annexure P-6) against the complainant, in which, the police submitted the police report (Annexure P-7). Consequently, the complainant was summoned, but he did not appear and bailable warrants(Annexures P-8 & P-9) were issued against him. As is clear that, even civil suit filed by petitioner-Gopal Krishan Hooda against complainant-Ashwani Kumar Bhagat, in respect of the same very agreement to sell was decreed vide judgment & decree dated 12.11.2013(Annexure P-15) by the Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Div), Panchkula.

Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that, the plot in dispute is situated in Sector 21 Panchkula, Haryana, and it was transferred in the names of Vipan Singla and Mohit Singla by Estate Officer, Panchkula. Not only that, a criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner against the complainant at Panchkula. Strange enough, still, the complainant got registered the present criminal case against the accused in Amritsar, after about three years from the date of transfer of the plot. The lodging of instant criminal case against the petitioners by the complainant at Amritsar appears to be a counter-blast of the criminal complaint, civil suit filed by petitioner-Gopal Krishan Hooda and to wreak vengeance. Besides it, the dispute appears to be purely of a civil nature and the validity & genuineness of the agreement to sell has already been decided by the trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure P-15). Above all, in case, the complainant is, in any way, aggrieved by the transfer of the plot in favour of the accused, in that eventuality, he would be at liberty to challenge their alienation in the civil court at Panchkula (Haryana).

Not only that, during the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court(T.P.S. Mann, J.) passed the following order on 30.08.2013 in the 1st petition:-

Vide order dated 15.12.2008(Annexure P-12), Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and his co-accused for the grant of anticipatory bail. Instead of moving this Court for the concession of anticipatory bail, the petitioner filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR. On 23.12.2008, this Court issued notice and directed that in the meantime, further proceedings before the trial Court would remain stayed till further orders. The said order was modified on 13.7.2009 on an application filed by the complainant by observing that the presentation of the challan would remained stayed but the investigation would continue. The aforementioned petition filed by the petitioner was finally dismissed as having been withdrawn vide order dated 18.7.2013 (Annexure P-13) by permitting the petitioner to take all the pleas available to him before the trial Court at the time of framing of the charge. It was, thereafter, that the petitioner filed the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail.

When asked by the Court as to whether the petitioner has even been summoned for the purpose of joining the investigation after the dismissal of his application for the grant of anticipatory bail by the Court of Sessions, learned State counsel has read out zimni No. 13 dated 10.1.2010. However, on going through the said zimni, it is made out that any further proceedings were to be taken on the basis of the orders passed in the quashing petition filed by the petitioner.

Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner can now be directed to join the investigation.

Adjourned to 4.10.2013.

In the meantime, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 6.9.2013 at 11.00 a.m. and join the investigation. In the event of his arrest, he be admitted to interim bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer to his satisfaction. He shall, however, abide by all the conditions as envisaged by Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Sequelly, similar order was passed by a Coordinate Bench this Court(Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.) on 22.01.2014 in the 2nd petition.

At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Baldev Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage and were admitted to bail. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are hereby accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, vide orders dated 30.08.2013 and 22.01.2014 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded only for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions. At the same time, if the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection.