J.S. Riar vs State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—J.S. Riar, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 68 dated 28.02.2012 at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, for an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. While issuing notice of motion, the following submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner have been noticed:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR is very cryptic. According to him, the real story is revealed in the agreement (Annexure P-6) where it is mentioned that the property was sold by the petitioner to the complainant Tajinder Pal Singh and others but when mutation could not be sanctioned in respect of the same in their favour, this property was agreed to be sold to the petitioner against the payment of Rs.30 lacs by way of 8 cheques mentioned therein. He has submitted that the complaint about which Tajinder Pal Singh makes a mention in the FIR is of the year 2004. According to him, if the amount of the cheques was not received by the complainant, he could not have remained silent for about 8 years. He has submitted that no proceeding was ever filed by him on dishonour of the cheques. He has submitted that this matter is purely of civil nature. According to him, while the first petition was filed for pre-arrest bail, these facts could not be mentioned and the case could not be presented in the proper perspective. He has submitted that law is not averse to second petition for pre-arrest bail provided the fresh application is based on more details which is there in this case. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Babu Singh and others v. The State of UP 1978 AIR (SC) 527, where it has been laid down that earlier order refusing bail does not bar fresh application if the same is filed providing more details. He has also placed reliance upon two other decisions, one of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Capt. Buddilota Subba Rao 1989(2) RCR (Crl.) 612 and the other of Calcutta High Court in R.C. Goyel and another v. State of West Bengal and others 2002(2) AICLR 331.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR lacks in the facts. He has further submitted that some property was purchased by the petitioner and had been sold to Tajinder Pal Singh and others. According to him, Tajinder Pal Singh and others failed to get mutation regarding the said land sanctioned in their favour and it was decided between the parties that the property would be re-conveyed to the petitioner against payment of Rs.30 lacs. He has further submitted that eight post dated cheques were issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant for a total sum of Rs.30 lacs and the dates put on those cheques were separated by two or three weeks. According to him, the last cheque bore 29.09.2003 as the date. He has further submitted that the price of the land re-conveyed to the petitioner was subsequently paid and for that reason, the cheques were not put for collection. According to him, the allegation that the cheques were dishonoured is absolutely incorrect. He has given two fold reasons to support his submission. According to him, neither there is any evidence produced by him before the police of dishonour of the cheques nor he produced against the petitioner under the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ''the Act'') for dishonour of the cheques. According to him, had the cheques been dishonoured, it could not be believed that the complainant did not proceed against the petitioner for a period of eight or nine years. He has further submitted that since the entire sale price was paid, there was no question of cheating the complainant.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that this is the second petition for anticipatory bail. She has referred this court to the earlier order dated 13.03.2012 passed in the petition of J.S. Riar, the petitioner where he was not found entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. According to her, the attorney of the complainant has denied the receipt of payment when he was contacted. The reasons for entertaining this second petition have already been noticed in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on 04.05.2012, as re-produced above. The submissions made before me clearly show that details of the occurrence now submitted were not submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the earlier petition. In these circumstances, when the petitioner has already joined the investigation several times, as is admitted by learned counsel for the State, I do not find custodial interrogation of the petitioner to be required for investigation of the case. Hence, the petition is allowed. If J.S. Riar, the petitioner is to be arrested in this case, he would be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions laid down u/s 438 sub section 2 clauses (i)(ii) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.