Date of Decision:-24.1.2013 Vs. Versus - Court Judgment

CRM not M-2385 of 2013 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-2385 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:-24.1.2013 Balvir Singh @ Dalvir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Ashish Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that, complainant Daljit Kaur having been deserted by her husband, was residing in her parental village Kotli. Her brother Kuldeep Singh was owner of land measuring 2 acres in village Hariau, Tehsil Patran, Distt.Patiala. He was drugs addict. The prosecution claimed that petitioner Balvir Singh alias Dalvir Singh, taking the benefit of habit of drugs addiction of Kuldeep Singh, misled him and illegally got his land sold to Prabhjot Kaur and Parnit Kaur, for a total sale consideration amount of ` 26 lacs. Since Kuldeep Singh was not having any bank account, so, the petitioner got the entire amount of sale consideration in his account with a promise that he will transfer the amount in his (Kuldeep Singh) account. The petitioner and his other co- CRM not M-2385 of 2013 (O&M) 2 accused hatched a criminal conspiracy and illegally detained Kuldeep Singh at some unknown place for one month. Petitioner became dishonest and did not return the amount of pointed sale consideration to Kuldeep Singh and misappropriated the same. It was claimed that thereafter the accused had administered some intoxicating drugs, took Kuldeep Singh and killed him projecting it to be a case of accident, in order to usurp the amount.

2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in detail in the FIR in all, according to the complainant that all the accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, got the land of Kuldeep Singh transferred in the name of Prabhjot Kaur and Parnit Kaur for a total sum of Rs.26 lacs. The petitioner got deposited the amount in his account, hatched a criminal conspiracy, administered drugs, killed Kuldeep Singh terming it to be a case of accident, cheated and misappropriated the indicated amount. The petitioner was stated to have threatened the complainant with dire consequences to kill her entire family in this regard and refused to return the pointed amount. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Daljit Kaur d/o late Palwinder Singh and sister of Kuldeep Singh (deceased), the present case was registered against the petitioner- accused, by virtue of FIR No.303 dated 20.11.2012 (Annexure P1), only for the commission of offences punishable under sections 420 and 406 IPC by the police of Police Station Patran, District Patiala in the manner depicted here-in-above.

3. Having exercised and lost his right before Additional CRM not M-2385 of 2013 (O&M) 3 Sessions Judge, the petitioner 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 considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that petitioner has no connection with the deceased and since he has been falsely implicated, 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 there are direct allegations that the petitioner-accused along with his other co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy. Taking the benefit of drug addiction of Kuldeep Singh got his land sold, for a total sale consideration of ` 26 lacs, deposited the same in his (petitioner's) account, kept him (Kuldeep Singh) at some unknown place, killed him terming it to be a case of accident in order to usurp the money in the manner depicted here-in- above.

7. Meaning thereby, there are direct allegations that the petitioner and his other co-accused have hatched a deep rooted conspiracy, cheated the deceased, complainant and misappropriated the amount. Keeping in view the seriousness of nature of allegations of heinous offences, to me, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is essential to remove the curtain and unearth the deep rooted conspiracy CRM not M-2385 of 2013 (O&M) 4 and scam. The amount of Rs.26 lacs is yet to be recovered from him. To my mind, if he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of pointed amount & 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. 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 amount and case property from the accused and investigation by the police. The Court has 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.

8. 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 present petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

9. 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 instant petition for anticipatory bail. 24.1.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge