AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 389 wordsL.N. Mittal, J.
Crl. Misc. No. 57337 of 2012
Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case
By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions i.e. instant Crl. Misc. No. M-29875 of 2012 filed by Kailash Chander and Ravi Kumar and connected Crl. Misc. No. M-38068 of 2012 filed by Naval, all seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 38 dated 06.08.2012 registered under Sections 380, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 and 120-B IPC at Police Station ''D'' Division, District Amritsar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
According to prosecution version, Sukhdev Singh Bawa had sold the plot in question to Bimla Devi in the year 1968. Bimla Devi sold the same to Leela Bawa in the year 1969. Complainant Deepak Kumar is among legal heirs of Leela Bawa, since deceased. It is further alleged by the prosecution that sale deed dated 15.02.2001 has been executed in favour of petitioners Kailash Chander and Ravi Kumar and non-petitioner Vipin Kumar regarding the same plot by four vendors Ravinder Bawa etc. as legal heirs of Sukhdev Singh. Naval petitioner identified the vendors at the time of sale deed. It is alleged that in fact Ravinder Bawa was not present and he was impersonated by one Tenu Bawa at the time of sale deed.
Counsel for the petitioners Kailash Chand and Ravi Kumar contended that they are bonafide purchasers of the land and the dispute is of civil nature. Counsel for Naval petitioner contended that the petitioner did not identify the vendors at the time of sale deed and somebody else might have impersonated as petitioner.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. The sale deed in favour of petitioners Kailash Chander etc. is said to have been obtained by impersonation of one of the said vendors. The vendors also had no right, title or interest in the property in question. The property in question is sought to be grabbed by procuring the aforesaid sale deed. It cannot be said to be a dispute of purely civil nature only. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case to release the three petitioners on anticipatory bail. Both the petitions are dismissed.