Sant Lal and another vs State of Haryana

L.N. Mittal, J.—Accused Sant Lal and Lakhan Singh alias Kala have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 328 dated 22.09.2011, under Sections 379, 387, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - IPC), registered at Police Station Model Town, District Rewari.

Case of the prosecution is that complainant Kiran Devi agreed to purchase 200 sq. yds. land from the petitioners'' co-accused Shri Bhagwan vide agreement dated 27.12.2004, but on the spot, only three marlas land was found and accordingly, sale deed of three marlas of land was executed in favour of the complainant on 28.02.2005 by Shri Bhagwan. The complainant filled foundation up to D.P.C. level. However, on 15.09.2011, the petitioners along with other co-accusd, trespassed into the said plot and broke the lock of the gate and had stolen the iron gate. On 16.09.2011, complainant''s husband Sita Ram got telephone call on his mobile, wherein the accused asked for extortion money of Rs. 10 lacs. The call was made from mobile telephone belonging to the accused. Sale deed in favour of petitioner no.1 in the year 2006 regarding 80 sq. yds. land is result of fraud because Shri Bhagwan was left with no area at the spot, although in revenue record, there was some remaining land shown in his ownership.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Babu Ram, stated that the telephone, from which ransom call was allegedly made, belongs to petitioners'' co-accused Shiv Kumar and not to the petitioners.

There is sale deed Annexure P-4 regarding 80 sq. yds. land in favour of petitioner no.1. Counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner no.1 is in possession of the said land and has no concern with the land purchased by the complainant. Admittedly, in the revenue record, Shri Bhagwan was depicted to be owner of 200 sq. yds. land, which he purchased vide sale deed dated 11.02.1994, as also mentioned in agreement Annexure P-1 dated 27.12.2004 executed by Shri Bhagwan in favour of complainant''s husband Sita Ram regarding said entire 200 sq. yds. land being 7/160th share of land measuring 08 kanals. However, sale deed dated 28.02.2005 Annexure P-3 was executed in favour of the complainant regarding 90 sq. yds. land i.e. 3/160th share of land measuring 08 kanals and also another sale deed dated 28.02.2005 Annexure P-2 was executed regarding 30 sq. yds. land i.e. 1/160th share of land measuring 08 kanals, by Shri Bhagwan in favour of one Sudhir Kumar. It was thus contended by counsel for the petitioners that Shri Bhagwan was still left with 80 sq. yds. land, which he sold to petitioner no.1. It was also pointed out by counsel for the petitioners that even according to the agreement Annexure P-1 in favour of complainant''s husband Sita Ram, land measuring 200 sq. yds. of Shri Bhagwan was in two parcels i.e. 120 sq. yds. and 80 sq. yds. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the complainant and Sudhir Kumar purchased parcel of 120 sq. yds. and are in possession thereof, whereas petitioner no.1 purchased the other parcel of 80 sq. yds. and is in possession thereof and he has nothing to do with the land purchased by the complainant. Admittedly, in revenue record also, Shri Bhagwan - vendor of both the parties was owner of 200 sq. yds. land, having purchased it vide sale deed dated 11.02.1994

In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is allowed. Interim order dated 01.11.2011 is made absolute.