Santokh Singh vs Virsa Singh and Another

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—The present petition u/s 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 1-Virsa Singh, Lamberdar, vide order dated 24.08.2012 passed by this court in a case arising out of FIR No. 147 dated 12.06.2012, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Batala, District Gurdaspur. The operative part of the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by this court is as under:-

Brief facts of the case are that one Nirmal Singh was owner of a five marla plot. Some one impersonating Nirmal Singh had sold the said plot to Baljit Kaur, co-accused of the petitioner. The petitioner Virsa Singh and Rajwinder Singh, alleged to have identified the said impersonator as Nirmal Singh. The said plot so purchased by Baljit Kaur was sold to the complainant Santokh Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Nirmal Singh has not filed any complaint regarding selling out of his plot to Baljit Kaur. He further submits that the investigating agency has already arrested Baljit Kaur and in spite of that could not apprehend the alleged impersonator of Nirmal Singh, therefore, at this stage, the investigating agency cannot allege that the petitioner had wrongly identified the impersonator of Nirmal Singh. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this case since no recovery is to be effected from him.

Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Balwinder Singh of Anti Fraud Staff, Gurdaspur, submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this case to know the whereabouts and credentials of the alleged impersonator of Nirmal Singh.

Heard.

Nirmal Singh, the original owner of the plot has not lodged any report with the police. He has no grouse against the petitioner. The petitioner is simply a witness to the sale deed. The beneficiary of Baljit Kaur who has already been arrested and granted bail by the learned court below. Her police remand was obtained by the police but in spite of that the investigating agency could not know the whereabouts of the alleged impersonator of Nirmal Singh. No recovery has to be effected from the petitioner. The culpability of the petitioner has to be established during the course of trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submitted that it was wrongly urged before this court by respondent Virsa Singh while making prayer for grant of anticipatory bail that Nirmal Singh, the original owner of the plot had not lodged any report to the police. He further submitted that, in fact, Nirmal Singh had moved two applications to the police and their diary numbers are duly mentioned in the impugned FIR, therefore, by making wrong averment, respondent No. 2 Virsa Singh obtained the order for grant of anticipatory bail by this court.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Virsa Singh submitted that it is true that diary numbers of the complaints are mentioned in the FIR but it has no where stated that Nirmal Singh had presented the said applications, therefore, respondent No. 2 Virsa Singh was not aware that Nirmal Singh had filed any application or complaint before the court. He also submitted that the concession of anticipatory bail has not been granted solely on the basis that Nirmal Singh the original owner of the plot had not lodged any report to the police. In fact, the other grounds for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail were that Virsa Singh was not beneficiary and that he had put his signatures on the sale deed as a attesting witness only. The yet another ground was that the beneficiary of the sale deed was Baljit Kaur and she was arrested by the police and during her police remand nothing incriminating had emerged on record against Virsa Singh. He also submitted that Virsa Singh is on anticipatory bail for the last approximately one year and he had not in-any-manner violated the terms and conditions of the bail bonds, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance perused the material available on record.

As noticed herein above, it is clear that Virsa Singh was not granted anticipatory bail solely on the ground that Nirmal Singh, the original owner of the plot had not lodged any report to the police and that he had no grouse against the petitioner. The other grounds on which the anticipatory bail was granted were that Virsa Singh was not beneficiary to the sale deed and that he had put his signatures only on the sale deed as a witness. Even otherwise, post bail conduct of Virsa Singh is not in dispute in this case. Virsa Singh has not misused the concession of bail in any manner.

In the matter of Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, the Hon''ble Supreme Court had drawn distinction between the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case and cancellation of bail already granted by observing as under:-

Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fare trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.

Brij Nandan Jaiswal Vs. Munna @ Munna Jaiswal and Another, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In the said case, it was held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court that in a murder case mechanical grant of bail, without considering the pros and cons of the matter were not justified. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the verdict delivered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Dolat Ram''s case (supra), the present petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.