Gurcharan Singh alias Chanan Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail are involved in the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of the facts.

Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Petitioners Gurcharan Singh alias Chanan Singh and Daler Singh, have filed the above mentioned two separate petitions for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused, vide FIR No. 239 dated 4.9.2010 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Rajpura, Distt. Patiala, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure.

According to the prosecution that the Petitioners alognwith their other co-sharers had sold the land in question to complainant Gurnam Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 26.5.2006. The area of sold land was subsequently found less. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the Petitioners and their other co-accused, in the manner described here-in-above.

Notice of the petitions was issued to the State.

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

What is not disputed here is that the Petitioners and their other co-sharers were stated to have executed the sale deed on 26.5.2006 and the present case was registered on 4.9.2010 i.e. after more than 4 years and 3 months of the sale deed. Moreover, the transaction was by way of registered sale deed. As the difference of area in the sale deed and actual area can be verified from the revenue record and from the office of Sub Registrar, therefore, to me, no custodial interrogation is required in this case. The dispute appears to be of a civil nature. The offences alleged against the Petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of previous involvement of the Petitioners in any such case.

Therefore, taking into consideration the delay of 4 years and 3 months in lodging the FIR and totality of other 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 the trial of the case, the present Petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case.

Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the Petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

Needless to mention that in case, the Petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection.