CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: July 01, 2009
Varinder Pal Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, for the complainant.
Rajan Gupta, J.
The petitioner has preferred this petition for anticipatory
bail in a case registered against her under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468
IPC at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana, vide FIR No.311 dated
14th November, 2008.
The complaint was lodged by sister of the petitioner
alleging that the petitioner in connivance with Gurjit Kaur and Bagel
Singh Lambardar, executed a sale-deed in favour of one Gian Singh on
10th February, 2005. According to the complainant this sale-deed was
forged as some lady was produced who impersonated as mother of the
petitioner and signed the necessary documents. The consideration
received in respect of the sale was also misappropriated by the
petitioners. The Lambardar connived with the petitioner and the
CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 2
unknown woman, who impersonated as Mohinderjit Kaur (mother of the
petitioner).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was owner of half share of the plot which is alleged to have
been sold and she was duly authorised by her mother to sell the plot.
This apart, there was a delay of 3½ years in lodging the FIR. According
to the counsel, no recovery has to be effected from the petitioner and
thus she deserves the concession of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has
vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.
He has submitted that after ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to
the petitioner, she refused to answer any relevant query of the
investigating agency despite repeated opportunities. Learned counsel
has also submitted that petitioner’s joining the investigation had served
no purpose as she did not cooperate with the investigating agency in any
manner. She refused to disclose the name of the woman who
impersonated as Mohinderjit Kaur at the time of execution of the sale
deed in favour of Gian Singh. Learned counsel referred to orders dated
22.1.2009, 19.2.2009, 18.3.2009 and 18.5.2009 in order to contend that
the court was apprised on these dates about the totally non-cooperative
attitude of the petitioner. Learned State counsel has also referred to the
information received from Foreigners Regional Registration Officer,
New Delhi, according to which mother of the petitioner, namely,
Mohinderjit Kaur was not in the country on the date when the sale-deed
CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 3
was executed, clearly showing that somebody impersonated in her place.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given
careful thought to the facts of the case.
On May 18, 2009 while addressing the arguments, learned
State counsel had produced a report dated 12th March, 2009 received
from Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, New Delhi and the same
was taken on record as Mark ‘A’. According to the said report,
Mohinderjit Kaur departed from the country on 7th August, 2002 by
flight SQ-407 and arrived back in the country on 21st April, 2007 by
flight No. CI-181 at IGI Airport, New Delhi. The sale-deed is said to
have been executed on 10th February, 2005 wherein the petitioner and
her mother are vendors. Apparently, mother of the petitioner
(Mohinderjit Kaur) was not in the country on the date, the sale-deed was
executed.
Despite serious allegations against the petitioner, she was
granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail and allowed to join the investigation.
However, repeated stand of the investigating agency before this Court
remained that the petitioner had refused to cooperate with the
investigating agency. She refused to disclose the name of woman who
impersonated in place of Mohinderjit Kaur. The investigating agency, it
appears, has been making efforts to conclude the investigation. It also
sought information from the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer as
regards the date of departure and arrival of Mohinderjit Kaur from the
country. However, due to non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner, the
CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 4
investigation of the case is still pending.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered view that the petitioner has disentitled herself to the
concession of anticipatory bail.
The observations of the Apex Court in the case reported as
State represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, decided
on 3rd September, 1997, are relevant in the context of this case. The
same are as under:-
“Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more
elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well
ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the
Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a
suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring
many useful informations and also materials which would
have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would
elude if the suspected person knows that he is well
protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the
time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a
condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that
the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the
person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be
countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by
all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume
that responsible police officers would conduct themselves
in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the
task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves
as offenders.”
In the present case, the investigating agency apprised this
CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 5
court on various occasions that after being granted an ad-interim
pre-arrest bail by this Court, the attitude of the petitioner with the
investigating agency remained totally non-cooperative. Though she
appeared before the Investigating Officer, but refused to answer any
relevant query. She refused to disclose the name and whereabouts of the
woman who impersonated as Mohinderjit Kaur.
I, therefore, find no ground to extend the concession of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The present bail petition is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
July 01, 2009
‘rajpal’