Sajjan Singh vs State Of Punjab

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

This order shall dispose off above mentioned three regular bail applications filed on behalf of Sajjan Singh, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga and Virsa Singh in a

case registered vide FIR No.251 dated 18.12.2019 under Sections 419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station Guruharsahai, District

Ferozepur.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Prince Kamboj wherein he has levelled allegations against Sajjan Singh, Balvir Kaur, Virsa Singh,

Paramjit Kaur, Surmukh Singh, Sukhraj Kaur, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga, Harpinder Singh @ Judge and six unidentified persons including two women. It

has been alleged therein that complainant's father Nek Raj received a telephone call from mobile No.8475006313 of Sajjan Singh, who represented

that some land was available for sale at cheap rates. Subsequently, a property dealer namely Virsa Singh also called complainant's father on mobile

phone and offered to show the land in question, upon which the complainant's father called them in village Panje Ke Uttarh where Virsa Singh,

Surmukh Singh @ Tota Singh and Sajjan Singh came in their car and represented that land measuring 32 acres and 4 kanals, situated in village

Rerwan was available for sale. The complainant's father liked the land and agreed to purchase the same. On 7.10.2019, Sajjan Singh, Virsa Singh,

accompanied by imposter Sandeep Singh and imposter Gurmit Singh who were impersonating as such, came to their house. Later, the complainant

came to know that the person who was impersonating as Sandeep Singh was infact Harpinder Singh @ Judge and the person impersonating as Gurmit

Singh was infact Jagjit Singh @ Jagga son of Hari Singh. They were accompanied by unidentified men and a woman. A deal was settled for sale of

land @ ` 6 lacs per acre and an amount of ` 4 lacs was given as earnest money and an agreement was executed. Subsequently, an amount of ` 6 lacs

was transferred into the account of Sandeep Singh on 19.10.2019. It is further the case of prosecution that another amount of ` 20 lacs was

transferred by way of RTGS transactions in the account of aforesaid Sandeep Singh who was infact impersonating as such. On 22.10.2019, another

amount of ` 20 lacs is stated to have been transferred in the account of imposter Gurmit Singh. It is also the case of prosecution that subsequently,

another amount of ` 6 lacs was also transferred into the account of imposter Gurmit Singh-accused. It is, thus, the case of prosecution that the land

was infact owned by Sandeep Singh, Gurmit Singh and Nirmaljit Kaur whereas the same was sought to be sold by the accused by way of

impersonation. The prosecution alleges that the complainant's father had, thus, been duped for an amount of ` 85 lacs.

The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that they have falsely been implicated in the instant case and that there is no evidence worth

credence to show that the amount of ` 75 lacs had been received by the accused. It has further been submitted that the investigation in any case is

complete and further detention of the petitioners are not required for any purpose.

Opposing the petitions, the learned State counsel has submitted that since there are specific and categoric allegations levelled against the accused

Sajjan Singh and Virsa Singh to the effect that they had held out a false representation to the complainant regarding sale of land and had introduced

him to two imposters Sandeep Singh and Gurmit Singh, whose real identity was infact Harpinder Singh and Jagjit Singh, no case for grant of bail is

made out. The learned State counsel has, however, not disputed the fact that the petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 1 year and that

none of them is involved in any other case. It has further been informed that charges are yet to be framed and that as many as 14 prosecution

witnesses have been cited by the prosecution.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially that the petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 1 year and are

not stated to be involved in any other case and that trial is yet to commence, further detention of the petitioners will not serve any useful purpose as

conclusion of trial is likely to consume time.

All the petitions, as such, are accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to

the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.