Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarabjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 6 October, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRM No.M-30073 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 30073 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: October 6, 2012.
Sarabjit Singh and others.
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. H.S.Lalli,
Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Neelam, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. K.B.S.Mann,
Advocate, for the complainant.
*****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for pre-arrest bail to petitioners in FIR no. 74 dated 14.07.2012, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420/465/467/468/471/120B IPC, registered at police station Jaitu, District Faridkot.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot dismissing anticipatory bail application CRM No.M-30073 of 2012 2 filed on behalf of the petitioners.
Briefly stated, two complaints were filed by the present petitioners i.e., one was filed by petitioner no.1-Sarabjit Singh to the Deputy Commissioner and another complaint was filed by all the petitioners to Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh regarding cutting in the revenue record and for taking action against Charanjit Singh son of Dharm Singh, Lakhdip Singh son of Manohar Singh and Manohar Singh son of Dharm Singh on the plea that earlier the land in dispute bearing Khasra no. 1068 (2K 4M) was recorded as Gair Mumkin pond property of Gram Panchayat village Khachra and however, for the first time in Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 in the column of ownership instead of Gram Panchayat, names of Hira Singh, Ajaib Singh, Arjun Singh and Joginder Singh had been recorded. Hence, on the said complaints two inquiries were got conducted. One inquiry was made by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot and another inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police (D), Faridkot. In both the inquiries, it was found that the revenue record was tampered with and that even there was difference between Parat Patwar and Parat Sarkar of this Khasra number. It has been specifically mentioned in the inquiry reports, after perusing the entire record that earlier Gram Panchayat was recorded as owner of this land and however, for the first time in Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 after making some cutting, names of Hira Singh, Ajaib Singh, Arjan Singh and Joginder Singh were cropped up. Though the inquiry report was silent about entries in the Jambandi for the years 1996-97 and 2001-02, it was also found that there was cutting in the Jamabandi for the CRM No.M-30073 of 2012 3 year 2006-07. However, the same was due to the fact that instead of Hira Singh names of LRs have been mentioned as Hira Singh had already expired. The Additional Deputy Commissioner in his inquiry report has come to the conclusion that primarily Darshan Singh, Patwari for the year 1991-92 and the area Kanungo for the year 2006-07 were responsible for these cuttings and they misused their position. However, case has also been registered against present petitioners that they had connived with the revenue officials for making these cuttings in the revenue record.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- accused that they have not committed any offence and that rather they were the whistle blowers and that they had not tampered with the revenue record as they were not going to get any benefit for the alleged tampering. It is further submitted that they had just made complaint to protect the interest of the Gram Panchayat and the whole village. It is further submitted that due to illegal occupation of the said Panchayat land by Ajaib Singh, Arjan Singh, Joginder Singh and other family members, the pond had been filled with earth and they had shown the said property as part of their residential houses and hence, the rainy water and dirty water is going to their houses. It is submitted that instead of taking action against them for having in their possession the Panchayat land, the action is sought to be taken against present petitioners, who have lodged the complaint to protect the Panchayat land.
On the other hand, it has been stated by learned counsel for the complainant as well as by learned counsel for State that earlier there was CRM No.M-30073 of 2012 4 litigation between petitioner and Dharam Singh and that just to falsely implicate Dharm Singh and other family members, petitioners in connivance with revenue officials got this tampering done in the revenue record. It has been contended that Dharm Singh and other family members do not want to dispute the ownership of the land of Gram Panchayat and that the land in dispute is also vacant and Dharm Singh and other family members have not taken its illegal possession. However, it has been admitted by learned counsel for respondent-State that the revenue officials in whose tenure the alleged tampering in the revenue record had taken place have not been joined in the investigation and they have not been interrogated so far.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.
Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which concession of anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners- accused.
The present petition is accepted. Petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case of their arrest, they shall be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 6, 2012. JUDGE 'om'