Gurdeep Singh Mangat vs State Of Punjab

Sandeep Moudgil, J

Relief Sought

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 86 dated 23.04.2023, under Sections 380, 447, 511, 506, 427, 120-B IPC later on Section 201 added, registered at Police Station Jamalpur, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.

Facts

The facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:

"To The SHO, Statement of Ranjit Singh S/o Tarlok Singh, R/o B-36/786, Street No. BRS Nagar, Ludhiana, age around 58 years, Mobile No. 9888731219, stated that I am resident of above said address and doing a business. My child's Father-in-law (Kudam) Manpreet Singh s/o Harcharan Singh, R/o House No. 1/765, Namak Bazar, Ramnagar, Varanasi (UP) having one plot of measuring 1000 sq. yds at Village Mudiyan Kalan, Ludhiana. The said plot was purchased in the year 2006 and Sale Deed was executed on 20.01.2006 from Harpreet Singh S/o Taranjit Singh and Parvinder Singh S/o Iqbal Singh and Balwinder Singh S/o Devinder Singh, R/o House No.1185, MIG, Sector-32, Ludhiana. The directions of this plot is East side 20 ft. street, West-Neghibour 156 Ft North (vacant plot) , South 60 ft. 2 inch road out of which Khasra No. 372/1, 372/2, 371/1, 371/2, Khata No.19/26, 200/27, Jamabandi of year 1999-2000 Village-Mundian Kalan, Hadbast No.179, Tehsil & District Ludhiana. The possession of the said plot was taken at the same time. The electricity and sewerage connection on that plot also in the name of Manpreet, two rooms and small bathroom also built-up on the said plot. My child's Father-in- law (Kudam) is residing at Varanasi hence, I take care of the said plot.

II, Dugri, Ludhiana reached at the spot and saw some persons have put the cement, brick etc. on the plot and Meson tried to took the possession of our plot. They also thrown out the belongings of our caretaker Santosh Kumar and gave threaten to him and his family members by Kuldeep Singh S/o Monan Singh, R/o Village Jatana, P.S. Sadar, Khanna, Ludhiana who claimed - to be the owner of the said plot, Jasbir Singh S/o Das Ram, R/o Ward No.4, Deep Nagar, P.S. Doraha, Ludhiana and Jaskaran Singh s/o Devinder Singh, R/o Village Shamgarh, P.S Samrala Ludhiana and 8-9 unknown persons who ran-away from the spot after seeing me and left the spot after thrown the Tasla, kahi etc. at the spot. The said persons also broken the CCTV Camera installed at our plot and also took the DVR. The above said persons continuously try to put the possession of our plot. We also came to know that all these acts were done on the instigation of Jagtar Singh, R/o Village Kumbhkalan, Ludhiana. The legal action should be taken against them. I, along with Charanjit singh, S/o Nirmal Singh, R/o House No.264, Phase-II, Dugri, Ludhiana recorded my statement and heard and the same is correct. -sd/- - Ranjit Singh, certified by Charanjit Singh, certified Sadhu Singh, ASI, Chowki Mudiyan Kalan, Jamalpur, Ludhiana, dated 23.04.2023.”

Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner:

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant FIR is merely a counter blast of the earlier criminal case i.e. FIR No. 82 dated 21.4.2023, under Sections 379, 447 IPC, P.S. Jamalpur, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana (Annexure P-1), registered against the complainant at the behest of the petitioner. In fact it is also asserted that the dispute revolves around the possession over a plot which could be civil in nature and has been given a colour of criminal liability only with a view to pressurize the petitioner to compromise the matter in the FIR earlier lodged by him against the complainant party.

Notice of motion.

On behalf of respondent-State

On the asking of Court, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and prays for dismissal of the present petition stating that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious.

Analysis & Decision

From the record, it is evident that a civil dispute is also pending between the parties in the form of suit for permanent injunction wherein, interim injunction has already been granted vide order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) in favour of the petitioner qua the same property and in that eventuality, petitioner's involvement in the present case is highly improbable. Thus, this Court does not find any reason for denying the relief sought in the present petition. Moreover learned State counsel has failed to demonstrate any fact or circumstance for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

Hence, in view of the admitted set of circumstances before this Court, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to him joining the investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of 10 days from today, upon furnishing of personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer.

The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS of which are reproduced below :-

“When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person 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;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section

(3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.”

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within 10 days, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically, stand cancelled.

In the afore-said terms, the present petition stands allowed.