Crm M-34030 of 2012. Vs. Crm M-34030 of 2012. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1056952
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnNov-19-2012
AppellantCrm M-34030 of 2012.
RespondentCrm M-34030 of 2012.
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm m-34030 of 2012. date of decision :19. 11.2012. kesar singh ...... petitioner versus state of punjab ...... respondent coram : hon'ble mr. justice nawab singh present: mr. arvind thakur, advocate, for the petitioner. ms. rajni gupta, addl. a.g., punjab. mr. ashok bhardwaj, advocate, for the complainant. nawab singh j.(oral) this is an application for anticipatory bail filed in nd case bearing fir no.282 dated september 22 , 2012 under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-b ipc registered in police station city, district sangrur.2. kesar singh son of jeet singh (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”.) along with his brother dharm singh was owner in possession of land measuring about 30 bighas situated in village gurdaspura, tehsil and district sangrur. the land th was purchased by him from bant singh on january 24 , 2005. on th june 15 , 2012 out of the said land, 5 bighas of land owned by the complainant was sold to jagan nath goel by impersonation. kesar singh son of amar singh-petitioner was lambardar of the village and he attested the sale deed mentioning that the parties were known to him.3. learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the petitioner identified the vendor and vendee at the instance of jagan nath goel so, he should be allowed anticipatory bail. in support of the contention, he has relied upon md. ibrahim vs. state of bihar 2009(4) rcr (criminal) 369. crm m-34030 of 2012. (2) 4. against this, learned state counsel has stated that earlier when the sale-deed was executed between the complainant and bant singh, the petitioner identified them. inspite of that, he identified the parties in the present sale-deed executed on th june 15 , 2012 by impersonating the complainant. he was very much known to the complainant.5. in md. ibrahim's case (supra), the facts were that the complainant filed a complaint against the appellants no.1 to 3 therein and two others before the chief judicial magistrate, madhubani alleging that he was the owner of land ad-measuring 1 bigha, 5 katha and 18 dhurs and the first accused who had no connection with the said land and who had no title thereto had nd executed two registered sale deeds dated june 2 , 2003 in favour of the second accused in respect of a portion of said land measuring 8 khatas and 13 dhurs and the third, fourth and fifth accused being respectively the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds had conspired with accused no.1 and 2 to forge the said documents and when he confronted accused no.1 and 2 about the said forgery, they abused him and hit him with fists and told him that he can do what he wanted, but they will get possession of the land on the basis of the said documents. the appellants before the hon'ble supreme court were not the owners or purchasers so, it was held that no offence under section 420, 467, 471 or 504 ipc could be made out against them but from the complaint, technically ingredients of offences of wrongful restrain under section 341 and causing hurt under section 323 of the indian penal code were made out and the order whereby charges were framed under these sections was left undisturbed.6. the aforesaid authority is of no help at all to the petitioner. here, in the case in hand, the petitioner firstly identified the real owner kesar singh (complainant) when he purchased the land in the year 2005 and thereafter again he identified somebody else to be kesar singh-complainant by impersonation. the petitioner is lambardar of the village. he is supposed to identify crm m-34030 of 2012. (3) right persons. it prima-facie shows that it was a fraud played upon the complainant.7. this court would not like to discuss in detail the evidence collected so far by the prosecution because it may prejudice the case of either party. it has been held by hon'ble the supreme court in kumari sujman pandey vs. state of uttar pradesh and another 2007(2) rcr (criminal) 65 that detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima-facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. suffice it to say that there appears to be prima-facie evidence against the petitioner, which dis-entitles him to pre-arrest bail. thus, the application is dismissed. 19.11.2012. (nawab singh) sn judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-34030 of 2012. Date of Decision :

19. 11.2012. Kesar Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Arvind Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the complainant. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This is an application for anticipatory bail filed in nd case bearing FIR No.282 dated September 22 , 2012 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered in Police Station City, District Sangrur.

2. Kesar Singh son of Jeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”.) along with his brother Dharm Singh was owner in possession of land measuring about 30 bighas situated in village Gurdaspura, Tehsil and District Sangrur. The land th was purchased by him from Bant Singh on January 24 , 2005. On th June 15 , 2012 out of the said land, 5 bighas of land owned by the complainant was sold to Jagan Nath Goel by impersonation. Kesar Singh son of Amar Singh-petitioner was Lambardar of the village and he attested the sale deed mentioning that the parties were known to him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the petitioner identified the vendor and vendee at the instance of Jagan Nath Goel so, he should be allowed anticipatory bail. In support of the contention, he has relied upon Md. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 369. CRM M-34030 of 2012. (2) 4. Against this, learned State counsel has stated that earlier when the sale-deed was executed between the complainant and Bant Singh, the petitioner identified them. Inspite of that, he identified the parties in the present sale-deed executed on th June 15 , 2012 by impersonating the complainant. He was very much known to the complainant.

5. In Md. Ibrahim's case (supra), the facts were that the complainant filed a complaint against the appellants No.1 to 3 therein and two others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani alleging that he was the owner of land ad-measuring 1 Bigha, 5 Katha and 18 Dhurs and the first accused who had no connection with the said land and who had no title thereto had nd executed two registered sale deeds dated June 2 , 2003 in favour of the second accused in respect of a portion of said land measuring 8 khatas and 13 Dhurs and the third, fourth and fifth accused being respectively the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds had conspired with accused No.1 and 2 to forge the said documents and when he confronted accused No.1 and 2 about the said forgery, they abused him and hit him with fists and told him that he can do what he wanted, but they will get possession of the land on the basis of the said documents. The appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were not the owners or purchasers so, it was held that no offence under Section 420, 467, 471 or 504 IPC could be made out against them but from the complaint, technically ingredients of offences of wrongful restrain under Section 341 and causing hurt under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code were made out and the order whereby charges were framed under these sections was left undisturbed.

6. The aforesaid authority is of no help at all to the petitioner. Here, in the case in hand, the petitioner firstly identified the real owner Kesar Singh (complainant) when he purchased the land in the year 2005 and thereafter again he identified somebody else to be Kesar Singh-complainant by impersonation. The petitioner is Lambardar of the village. He is supposed to identify CRM M-34030 of 2012. (3) right persons. It prima-facie shows that it was a fraud played upon the complainant.

7. This Court would not like to discuss in detail the evidence collected so far by the prosecution because it may prejudice the case of either party. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kumari Sujman Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 65 that detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a Court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima-facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. Suffice it to say that there appears to be prima-facie evidence against the petitioner, which dis-entitles him to pre-arrest bail. Thus, the application is dismissed. 19.11.2012. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE