Manjeet Kaur and Another vs State of Haryana

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—By filing the present petition u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 248 dated 10.4.2013, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are the owners of the land. He further submits that no amount was paid to the petitioner. He further submits that the agreements are forged and fabricated one. He further submits that it is a matter of civil nature and the complainant has a remedy to file a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. He further submits that the complainant party wants to usurp the property of the petitioners. He further submits that the CD seems to be manipulated and prepared one.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of the petitioners. He filed a status report in the present case, which is taken on record.

Heard.

In para No. 4 of the status report it is mentioned that during the course of investigation, it came to light that accused Ranjeet Kaur wife of Sultan Singh r/o Bahbalpur, has got opened a bank account No. 2497000101028327 with Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Hijrawan Khurd. This bank account has been opened by her by telling her name to be Manjeet Kaur (instead of Ranjit Kaur). She (or anybody else) has also put the false signatures of Angoori Bai, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Bahbalpur as an introducer. When confirmed from village Sarpanch Angoori Bai, she has told that she is an illiterate lady and puts her thumb impression on the concerned papers whenever so required. She further disowned the signatures and stamp (seal) of the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat appearing on the introducing letter. This account has been opened by accused Ranjit Kaur w/o Sultan Singh by misrepresenting her name to be Manjeet Kaur and by committing the forgery and fraud. As per the status report, the CD and Button Camera have been sent to the FSL and the report is still awaited. The thumb impressions of the accused are yet to be compared. In the present case, a huge amount is involved.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in State rep. By the State Rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, has held as under:-

The custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order u/s 438 of Cr.P.C.

In the present case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Accordingly, no case is made out to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.