Gurdeep Singh vs State of Punjab

Mahinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner Gurdeep Singh son of Jaswant Singh, has preferred the instant petition, for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 22 dated 26.2.2014 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC by the police of Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case, so, he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, lacks merit.

The pith and substance of the prosecution version, emanating from the complaint of complainant Jeet Singh s/o Sadhu Singh (for brevity "the complainant"), which formed the basis of FIR (Annexure P1), is as under:-

That Gurdeep Singh son of Shri Lachhman Singh resident of village Mithada Tehsil Phillaur on dated 14.7.2009 had entered into a contract for the sale of his land measuring 2 kanal for a sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 2 lacs (Rs. two lac) were given in cash by me to the accused. Copy of agreement to sell is attached with this application.

That on dated 1.8.2009 an agreement for the sale of 8 kanal 14 marlas was entered which was to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- out of which the accused person had received a sum of Rs. 2,84,000/- and on dated 6.9.2009 another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in presence of the witnesses were taken by the accused. Copy of agreement to sell is attached with this application.

That on dated 15.4.2010 sale of land measuring 8 kanals and 4 marlas for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was finalized out of which a sum of Rs. 9,40,000/- were given in cash to the accused and a copy of the agreement to sell is attached with this application.

That on dated 2.8.2010 an agreement to sell land measuring 23 kanals 16 marlas was entered for a total sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- out of which I had given Rs. 10,00,000/- to the accused on the day of the finalization of the sale and on dated 5.8.2010 Rs. two lac were given in cash. Copy of the agreement to sell is attached with this application.

That on dated 16.12.2010 sale of land measuring 8 kanal 8 marla had been finalized which sale was to the total sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- out of which the accused person had taken in cash Rs. 19,10,000/- from me. A copy of the agreement to sell is attached with this application.

That the photocopies of the fords pertaining to the land shown to me at the time of finalization of the sales are attached with the application and the photocopy of his own land had been shown to me by taking me to his village. Now on verification I have come to know that the land which was on the name of the accused is very much less and the fords which were shown to me do not tally with the record of the Revenue Department. Accused person by showing me fake and forged fords has played fraud of lacs of rupees with me. So, it is therefore, submitted that appropriate legal action be initiated against the accused persons and my aforesaid money which has been usurped by the accused person by playing fraud with me be got returned to me with interest and a case under the appropriate provisions of sections of law be got registered against them and justice be given to me.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner and his other co-accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, executed false pointed different agreements to sell of the land, which never belonged to him and misappropriated the huge amount of Rs. 46,34,000/- of the complainant. They did not return the amount to him. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant, the instant criminal case was registered against the accused in the manner depicted here-in-above.

Meaning thereby, very serious and direct allegations of heinous and grave offences are assigned that the petitioner and his other co-accused, have hatched a criminal conspiracy, executed the false indicated different agreements to sell of the land, which never belonged to him and misappropriated the pointed amount of the complainant. They did not return the amount to him. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is essential in this case. In case, the petitioner is granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail, then, the police would be deprived to ascertain the modus operandi, involvement of petitioner in other such scams, to recover the forged documents, case property, indicated huge amount and effective investigation. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which, to me, is not legally permissible.

Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. At the same time, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations of cheating & misappropriation of indicated amount against him and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail only.