Iqbal Singh Patwari vs State of Punjab

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions bearing Crl.M.Nos.28192 and 28782 of 2011, filed by petitioners u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No. 118, dated 20.8.2011, under Sections 167, 120B, 217, 218, 420, 423, 424 IPC, registered at Police Station City Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

On 30.9.2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order in Crl.M.No.M-28192 off 2011:

It is contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the Patwari of the village. He contends that the allegations against the petitioner is that he had changed the Khasra Girdawari and on that basis the revenue record has been changed. This was done by the Patwari by misstating the facts and under a bona fide belief the complainant had proceeded to put a thumb mark. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the case is totally false and without any basis. Apart from that he contends that the petitioner is a Government official, who is ready and willing to join the investigation and there is no apprehension of the petitioner absconding. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the same. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner.

Counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that it was because of the Patwari-petitioner that the revenue record could have been changed as he is the person involved and on his behest along with others and the complainant''s nephew, the possession of the land has been shown in the name of the purchaser. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

A perusal of the FIR indicates that the complainant is admitting the fact of his putting thumb impression, being present at the spot when the Khasra Girdawari was changed and he had thumb marked on the same. The only contention is that it was lateron tampered with. If that be so it does not make much of difference as what the assertions made in the FIR are is to be weighed. The petitioner is a Government employee. No recovery to be effected from the present petitioner. He is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the same.

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to join investigation at Police Station Economic Offence Wing, City Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib before the SI Darbar Singh on 4.10.2011 at 10.00 A.M.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. He shall abide by the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and shall join the investigation as and when required.

To come up for consideration on 2.12.2011.

The following order was passed in Crl.M.No.M-28782 of 2011 by the same Coordinate Bench on 30.9.2011:

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. The land which has been purchased by the petitioner from Manmohan Kaur, which was not a surplus land and in any case, the complainant is only a tenant on the land and his status does not change with the title of the land. He contends that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the same.

Notice of motion.

Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of for the complainant and argues that there is no dispute regarding title as he is not disputing that the complainant is only a tenant.

Adjourned to 2.12.2011.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. He shall abide by the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and shall join the investigation as and when required.

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners have already joined the investigation.

It has been stated by learned State counsel as well, on instructions from ASI Sukhdev Singh, that the petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. Rather it has been stated by learned State counsel that Investigating Officer has submitted cancellation report and the same has also been approved by Senior Superintendent of Police.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, orders dated 30.9.2011, granting interim bail to petitioners-Iqbal Singh Patwari and Kamalpreet Singh, are, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.