Sukhninder Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner Sukhninder Singh son of Makhan Singh, has instituted the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No. 356 dated 7.11.2009 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 416, 420 and 120B IPC, by the police of Police Station Division No. 4 Jalandhar, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this behalf.

At the very outset, the Petitioner was directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Baljeet Singh, has submitted that the Petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from him.

What is not disputed here is that Kuldeep Singh, husband of complainant Manjit Kaur, was the owner of TATA Safari vehicle in question. According to the Petitioner, he purchased the said vehicle from Kuldeep Singh, paid the entire consideration amount and applied for change of its registration in his name. After the death of Kuldeep Singh, his wife Manjit Kaur complainant started claiming her ownership of the vehicle. The prosecution claimed that Petitioner has neither paid the amount to the complainant nor returned the vehicle to her.

The version of the complainant is falsified with the report of investigating agency, wherein it was mentioned that Kuldeep Singh had disclosed to the police that he has already sold his vehicle. The Investigating Officer joined Surinder Kumar, Clerk of D.T.O. office, Jalandhar and recorded his statement to the effect that Petitioner Sukhninder Singh has moved an application (Annexure P3) for transfer of registration of vehicle in his name after depositing the requisite fee of Rs. 100/-and the papers were signed by Jaswant Singh Dhillon, A.D.T.O.

Moreover, all the offences alleged against the Petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of his previous involvement in any such case. Be that as it may, as nothing is to be recovered from the Petitioner and all the documents are already with the police, therefore, to me, no custodial interrogation is required in this case, particularly, when he has already joined the investigation.

Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, to me, the present Petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case.

Consequently, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the Petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) 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 (iii) he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. However, in case, the Petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant direction.