Manjit Singh Arora vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

This is a petition for anticipatory bail by the petitioners who apprehend that they are likely to be arrested for the offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the FIR, the translated version of which has been reproduced in paragraph 9 of the petition, the petitioners agreed to sell their property being shopcumoffice site No. 69 in Sector 46C at Chandigarh. The complainant has entered into an agreement with the petitioners that Rs. 9,27,000/ will be paid to the petitioners and Rs. 17,49,813/ will be paid to the Estate Office direct and, accordingly, Rs. 50,000/ was paid as an earnest money on 29.9.1996. The complainant makes a mention about further payment.

The complainant further states that on the date of execution of agreement, the seller did not turn up. On enquiry from the Estate Office, the complainant came to know that actual amount due to the Estate Office was approximately Rs. 29,95,000/ and not the amount as mentioned by the petitioners and shown in the Estate Office show cause letter dated 24.7.1996 (Rs. 17,49,813/). The complainant contends that petitioners have in connivance with the Estate Office officers cheated him.

When the petition for anticipatory bail came up before the learned single Judge on 4.2.1997, he issued notice to the State. It was also ordered to the petitioners to deposit Rs. 3,50,000/ within 15 days with the CJM, Chandigarh and Rs. 4,50,000/ within one month from the date of passing that order. It was also ordered that petitioners would join the investigation. At that time, directions were given to the Investigating Officer not to arrest the petitioners.

By an order dated 18.3.1997, the petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lacs.

The complainant has engaged Mr. D.P. Singh as an Advocate. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the U.T. Chandigarh and learned counsel for the complainant.

The application for anticipatory bail is vehemently opposed by the respondent and the complainant. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has produced in this case the certified copy of the plaint in the Civil Suit No. 181 of 1997 dated 7.2.1997, filed in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh. It is filed by the petitioners against the complainant and the prayer in the suit is for the declaration that the agreement to sell has lost its identity and stands rescinded and terminated on account of the failure of the complainant to perform his part of the contract and that the petitioners are entitled to retain all the money paid/advanced in pursuance to the said agreement.

The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that it was during the pendency of this petition that the suit is filed and that this is the third anticipatory bail application. In the first anticipatory bail application, the petitioners were ordered to apply to the Sessions Court and the second application was withdrawn on the ground that the parties had compromised.

However, filing of the suit shows that the complainant rights have been challenged by the petitioners in the civil Court also. In view of this position, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted with conditions mentioned in the final order below. The conditions will take care of the interest of the prosecution/investigation.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the amount deposited may be ordered to be refunded to the petitioners and that they would give a bank guarantee for the same. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently objected to this suggestion. He has also argued that this amount should not be repaid to the petitioners.

One of the issues framed in the suit is as to "Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to forfeit the money advanced/paid by the defendant ?" OPP. In view of this position, it will be proper to leave it to the civil Court to decide as to who is entitled to the amount. The learned counsels argued that there will be a loss of interest. However, the civil Court can decide that question too.

As a result, this petition is allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners in connection with FIR No. 6 dated 8.1.1997 of Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh, for the offences u/ss. 420 and 120B of the IPC, they be released on bail by the police on their furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount.

It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for police remand if he considers it proper and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits.

The petitioners shall cooperate with the police and remain present in the police station whenever so required by the police with prior notice to them in writing.

If the petitioners go out from the place of their residence for more than two days, they shall inform the police station in advance in writing regarding the same.

It is also made clear that petitioner No. 2 being a lady will be interrogated at her house before the sunset and after runrise.

This order shall remain in force for a period of 90 days from today.

The civil court, viz. Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, in Suit No. 181 of 1997, shall decide as to who is entitled to the amount already deposited by the petitioners of this case, as per the orders in this petition. This may be decided even by an interim order if found necessary by the civil Court after hearing the parties. The Civil Court shall also decide regarding the interest over the amount.