Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab

By filing the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought anticipatory bail in FIR

No.161 dated 03.10.2016, registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468

and 471 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, District Ludhiana.

On 23.11.2016, this Court had passed the following order:-

"Post again on 16.01.2017. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner by the Arresting Officer, he shall be released on interim bail subject to the following conditions:- 1.That he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2.That he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and; 3.That he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court."

It is contended that in pursuance of the order dated 23.11.2016,

the petitioner has joined the investigation. Learned counsel further states that

the property in question was owned by Gurdeep Singh, father of the

complainant. The petitioner has purchased the said property on 08.10.2004

against sale consideration of Rs.28,40,000/- which is reflected in Annexure

P-2. Though the possession was handed over but the sale deed was not

executed. The petitioner is holding the possession. For non-execution of the

sale deed, civil suit was filed which was allowed by the order of Civil Judge

(Junior Division) Ludhiana dated 24.12.2015 (Annexure P-4), sale deed has

now been executed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant

submits that in the civil suit, complainant was never served and the

judgment (Annexure P-4) is an ex parte judgment. However, complainant

had already moved an application for setting aside the Annexure P-4. The

land in question was transferred in favour of the complainant in the year

2015. The learned State counsel, submits that the petitioner has joined the

investigation and he is not required for custodial interrogation.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case, and considering the fact that the matter pertains to the

year 2004 and the complainant has already filed an application for setting

aside order dated 24.12.2015, Annexure-4 and it is not on record as to why

the vendor has not come forward to make a complaint, the interim bail

granted by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2016, is made absolute, subject

to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

The petition stands allowed.