Manjit Singh vs State of Punjabs

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The epitome of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that, petitioner Manjit Singh was working as Naib Tehsildar at Dera Baba Nanak. The provincial government was the owner of the land in question, measuring 70 Kanals 11 Marlas, situated at village Gurchak, Distt. Gurdaspur. Although the petitioner was not at all authorized by the competent authority, but still, he has prepared, executed the forged conveyance deed dated 26.12.2011 (Annexure P2) and signed it on behalf of Governor of Punjab in favour of one Jaswinder Singh son of Jaimal Singh, after receiving an illegal gratification (bribe) of Rs. 4 lacs. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that Surinder Pal Singh Pannu, co-accused and next Naib Tehsildar, has registered the mutation, without verification, in pursuance of fake conveyance deed executed by the petitioner in favour of Jaswinder Singh on 12.01.2012. On 26.03.2012, as soon as Gurmukh Singh, Office Kanungo, came to know regarding the big fraud/scam, then, he has informed (in writing) to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur in this regard. Not only that, Surinder Pal Singh Pannu, Naib Tehsildar (co-accused of the petitioner) again registered the fake sale deed dated 26.04.2012, executed by Jaswinder Singh in favour of Surjit Singh son of Bhag Singh and Amarjit Singh son of Partap Singh. The matter was inquired into. During the course of inquiry, it revealed that the petitioner has received an amount of Rs. 4 lacs as illegal gratification (bribe) and executed the indicated forged conveyance deed on behalf of Governor of Punjab in respect of government land by misusing his power as public servant. In this manner, the accused have caused the loss of many lacs to the government exchequer. During the inquiry, the allegations levelled against the petitioner were found to be correct by the Vigilance Department.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner and his other co-accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, prepared the fake conveyance deed on behalf of Governor of Punjab, used the forged documents as genuine and illegally transferred the land of the provincial government, after accepting a bribe of Rs. 4 lacs. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, the present case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 08 dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the police of Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

Having exercised his right and remained unsuccessful before the Additional Sessions Judge, now petitioner Manjit Singh, Naib Tehsildar son of Late Mohinder Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail in the pointed criminal case in this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the Vigilance Department in this case, so, he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the record that according to the prosecution, the petitioner and his other co-accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, prepared the fake conveyance deed on behalf of Governor of Punjab, used the forged documents as genuine and illegally transferred the land of the provincial government, after accepting a bribe of Rs. 4 lacs. Meaning thereby, very direct and serious allegations of pointed commission of heinous offences are assigned to the petitioner and his other co-accused.

Sequelly, the mere fact that there are some dis-similarities in the admitted signatures of the petitioner and his signatures on the conveyance deed (Annexure P2) in the report (Annexure P4) of Forensic Science Laboratory (for short "FSL"), Mohali (Punjab), ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to grant him the concession of pre-arrest bail at this stage. It is not matter of dispute that the officials of indicated FSL have issued numerous fake and fabricated such reports in various cases and a criminal case was registered against them, by means of FIR No. 14 dated 11.11.2013, for the commission of offences punishable u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 218, 201, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) and Sections 8 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the police of Police Station (Vigilance Bureau), Phase 1, Mohali and they were arrested on account of such false reports. Hence, possibility of obtaining false report (Annexure P4) from the same FSL cannot be ruled. Therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on the pointed report of FSL at this stage, as contrary urged on behalf of the petitioner, particularly when indisputably, he was posted as Naib Tehsildar at the relevant time when the conveyance deed was executed and signed by him on behalf of Governor of Punjab. It cannot possibly be denied that the tendency and frequency to create false documents after accepting the illegal gratification to transfer the government land by such revenue officers, have been tremendously increasing day by day, which needs to be curbed with heavy hands.

Meaning thereby, very direct and serious allegations of indicated heinous and grave offences are assigned to the petitioner. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is essential in this case. The police is yet to interrogate him and to collect evidence. In case, he is allowed the concession of pre-arrest bail, then, the police will be deprived to, ascertain the modus operandi of petitioner, to unearth the scams, his involvement in such other cases, to recover the bribe money in question, forged documents, other case property and effective investigation. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which, to my mind, is not legally permissible. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power u/s 438 Cr.PC is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. At the same time, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations of offences in question against him and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail only.