IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-29555 of 2009
Date of decision : November 10, 2009
Gurbhej Singh
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab with
Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate, for the complainant
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
By this common order, I shall be disposing of three petitions
i.e. Criminal Misc. No. M-29555 of 2009, filed by Gurbhej Singh, Criminal
Misc. No. M-29365 of 2009 filed by Jasbir Singh and Criminal Misc. No.
M-29799 of 2009 filed by Bharpur Singh, all seeking anticipatory bail in
case FIR No. 137 dated 23.8.2009 under sections 419, 420, 120-B IPC,
Police Station Dirbha, District Sangrur.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
Baldev Singh, Baljit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh agreed to
sell some land to complainant Nidhan Singh and received Rs 74 lacs as
earnest money and another sum of Rs 6 lacs was paid to property dealers
Criminal Misc. No. M-29555 of 2009 -2-
Savinderpal Singh, Kuljit Singh and Bikkar Singh. However, there was stay
order against sale of the said land. The land also stood attached.
Allegation against Bharpur Singh petitioner is that he
impersonated as Lakhwinder Singh while executing the agreement.
Allegation against Gurbhej Singh and Jasbir Singh is that they received Rs
4,90,000/- each out of the amount of Rs 80 lacs paid by the complainant.
In so far as Bharpur Singh is concerned, keeping in view the
allegation against him that he impersonated as Lakhwinder Singh and
executed agreement to sell on behalf of Lakhwinder Singh, Bharpur Singh
does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, Criminal
Misc. No. M-29799 of 2009 filed by Bharpur Singh is dismissed.
In so far as the remaining two petitioners Gurbhej Singh and
Jasbir Singh are concerned, they were not even named in the FIR. They
have been named by co-accused Savinderpal Singh, property dealer
regarding alleged payment to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that statement of Savinderpal Singh co-accused may not be
admissible in evidence. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI
Jaspal Singh, stated that the complainant in statement made on 13.9.2009
i.e. three weeks after lodging of FIR made statement about presence of both
these petitioners at the time of execution of the agreement. However,
learned State counsel is unable to explain as to why their presence at the
time of agreement was not mentioned in the FIR which has been recorded
on the basis of written application made by the complainant.
In view of the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any
opinion on merits, Criminal Misc. No. M-29555 of 2009, filed by Gurbhej
Criminal Misc. No. M-29555 of 2009 -3-
Singh and Criminal Misc. No. M-29365 of 2009 filed by Jasbir Singh are
allowed. In the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the condition that they shall
join the investigation as and when required and shall comply with the
conditions specified in section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Presently, they are directed
to join investigation on 17.11.2009 at 10.00 AM and continue to do so as
and when required by the police. The instant order shall remain effective
qua petitioners Gurbhej Singh and Jasbir Singh till one month after the
filing of charge sheet by the police or till decision of their regular bail
petition, whichever is earlier.
All the petition are disposed of accordingly.
( L.N. Mittal )
November 10, 2009 Judge
'dalbir'