Judgment:
CRM-M No.20551 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.20551 of 2014.
Date of Decision : 08.07.2014.
Balbir Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr.Mohd.
Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
*** Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
(Oral) This order shall dispose of the instant petition preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C.seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.56 dated 01.04.2014, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar City.
On 30.06.2014, while issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed by this Court :- “Counsel contends that co-accused namely Balwinder Kaur against whom there were identical allegations, has been granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 10.06.2014, passed in CRM No.M-20298 of 2014.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr.Vaibhav Sharma, learned D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.
A complete copy of the petition has been furnished to learned State counsel.
List on 8.7.2014.
In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer.
The petitioner shall join Kanchan 2014.07.09 17:19 investigation as and when called upon to do so and he shall I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M No.20551 of 2014 2 remain bound by the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”
.
Learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Tirlok Singh would apprise the Court that the petitioner has since joined the investigation.
Even otherwise, perusal of the FIR would reveal that the matter essentially is a land dispute, which is civil in nature and the allegation pertains to an agreement to sell having been entered into on 2.7.2009 pertaining to 21 marlas and the present petitioner/accused having sold away part of this land even prior to the target date that had been fixed in the agreement for registration of the sale deed.
The delay of more than 4 years in lodging the complaint/registration of FIR has gone unexplained.
Under such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be unwarranted.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by this Court is made absolute.
Petition disposed of.
July 08, 2014.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) kanchan JUDGE Kanchan 2014.07.09 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh