Full Judgment
CRM not M-2495 of 2013 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-2495 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:-25.1.2013 Jagdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.I.P.S.Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) Tersely, the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, are that, complainant Kuldeep Mahajan (for brevity “the complainant”.) and his son Sunny @ Anjum Mahajan were the owners of land in question, measuring 20 kanals 2 marlas, situated at village Khatana, Tehsil Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar. They have sold the land to one Sukhdev Singh son of Dharam Singh on 10.4.2012. During the course of mutation proceedings, it revealed that petitioner-accused has already prepared a fake agreement to sell dated 13.3.2012 and forged the signatures of the complainant on it.
2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioner-accused has forged the signatures and prepared a fake & fabricated agreement to sell CRM not M-2495 of 2013 (O&M) 2 in order to usurp their land. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, by way of FIR No.148 dated 5.12.2012 (Annexure P1), for the commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
3. Having exercised and lost his right before Additional Sessions Judge, not the petitioner has preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this regard.
5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant on account of previous litigation, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
6. As is evident from the record, that as per the prosecution version, the complainant and his son were the owners of the land in question. The petitioner has prepared a fake and fabricated agreement to sell to usurp their land. Even according to the recital of the photo copy of the forged agreement to sell, the deal was allegedly stuck for an amount of ` 45 lacs, which was alleged to have been handed over to the CRM not M-2495 of 2013 (O&M) 3 complainant as earnest money. It is difficult to believe that once the petitioner has paid the entire pointed amount of sale consideration as earnest money to the complainant and possession of land was also taken, in that eventuality, it remains an unfolded mystery as to why the sale deed was not executed & registered instead of executing the forged agreement to sell. The agreement to sell has not seen the door of the Court till today, which is stated to have been lost.
7. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations of committing heinous offences, to me, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is necessary to remove the curtain and unearth the scam. To my mind, if he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of fabricated documents & case property is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution and police will be deprived from unearthing the scam.
8. not only that, a perusal of impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge would reveal that the petitioner was granted ad interim anticipatory bail, enabling him to join the investigation with a direction to cooperate with the investigating agency to recover the fabricated agreement to sell and other case property, but he has not joined the investigation and failed to comply with the order of Additional Sessions Judge.
9. Moreover, it is not well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of indicated fake document and case property from the accused and investigation by the police. The Court has CRM not M-2495 of 2013 (O&M) 4 also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. At the same time, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.
10. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
11. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. 25.1.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge