Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Chander And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 9 December, 2009
Author: S.S.Saron
Bench: S.S.Saron
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc M- 27933 of 2009
Date of decision: 9.12.2009
Ram Chander and anr ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and anr ...Respondents
Present: Mr RA Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr Pawan Singh, AAG Haryana.
Mr Gaurav Jain, Advocate for respondent-2.
S.S.SARON, J.
This order will dispose of Criminal Misc M-27933 of 2009 and Criminal Misc M-28097 both filed by petitioners Ram Chander and Surja Ram against State of Haryana and Smt Darshna Devi - complainant.
Smt Darshna Devi - complainant (respondent-2) has filed two separate criminal complaints attached as Annexure P2 with the respective petitions. It is alleged by the complainant that the complainant, her sister and mother - Dropti are co-sharers in cultivating possession of land comprised in Khasra No.17/7 min (8-0) situated at village Bosti, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad. In one complaint, it is alleged that Surja Ram - petitioner is in cultivating possession of the said land as tenant Gair Marusi and in the other complaint, it is alleged that Ram Chander - petitioner is in cultivating possession of the said land as tenant Gair Marusi. The complainant as also her sister and mother had appointed Ram Chander Cr Misc M- 27933 of 2009 2 (accused-1) in one case and Surja Ram (accused-2) in the other case as Special Power of Attorney vide two separate deeds bearing No.381 and 382 dated 8.6.1992 so that each of them could look after the land properly. Both the deeds, it is alleged, were cancelled on 26.2.1998 by separate cancellation deeds. The complainant had asked the accused to vacate the land, which they refused; rather they, in conspiracy with each other, sold the land by using Special Power of Attorney on 16.1.2007 vide two separate sale deeds Nos.3624 and 3625. In this manner, it is alleged that the accused had committed forgery.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the case against the petitioners is to be proved on the basis of evidence and material on record. Besides, being a complaint case, the custody of the petitioners is not required. It is submitted that in consequence of the interim bail granted by this Court on 7.10.2009 in Criminal Misc M-27933 of 2009 and on 8.10.2009 in Criminal Misc M-28097 of 2009, the petitioners have furnished necessary bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The applications for bail is strongly opposed by learned counsel for the complainant - Smt Darshna Devi. It is submitted that the petitioners have committed clear cut forgery inasmuch as they have sold the land on the basis of Power of Attorney executed in favour of the respective petitioners on 8.6.1992 even though the said Power of Attorney had been cancelled on 26.2.1998. It is submitted that being relatives of the complainant, they were fully aware of the cancellation of the attorney. It is submitted that the petitioners have in their petitions stated that the petitioners had met the complainant in the month of December 2006 for execution of the sale deeds as per the agreement. It is submitted that the amount had already been paid by the petitioners to the complainant, her sister and their mother. It is Cr Misc M- 27933 of 2009 3 further stated that the complainant along with her sister and mother told the petitioners that they had no objection to the sale of the property on Special Power of Attorney which had already been given. Besides, they did not disclose that they had withdrawn the Special Power of Attorney in the year 1998. From the said averments, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that in fact Dropti - mother of the complainant had died on 17.4.2004 and, therefore, the averments that the petitioners met the complainant as also her mother in December 2006 clearly shows that they could not have met them. Besides, it is submitted that warrants of possession had been issued for taking possession of the land in favour of the complainant; however, the petitioners are not allowing the warrants to be executed and are interfering in the legal process. Therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioners have been summoned in a criminal complaint case where their custody is not required for the purposes of investigation. The allegations as made in the complaint are to be proved by leading evidence. At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations as contained in the complaint have been established. The question regarding sale of the land of the complainant on the basis of Special Power of Attorney dated 8.6.1992 despite the same having been cancelled on 26.2.1998 is liable to be proved by placing on record necessary documents. The case is based primarily on documentary evidence and, therefore, to confine the petitioners to jail at this stage may not be proper. In case the allegations as made in the complaint against the petitioners are proved, necessary consequence would ensue. However, to confine an accused to jail without the case being proved which Cr Misc M- 27933 of 2009 4 is primarily based on documentary evidence, may amount to convicting the accused without trial.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the confinement of the petitioners to jail at this stage is not warranted. The question that the petitioners are interfering in the lawful execution of the warrants of possession, the complainant may approach the executing authorities and the Court issuing the warrants, for necessary orders. However, the same would not be a ground to decline the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in the present case.
Consequently, the petitioners, in the event of their arrest, shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bond and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate. They shall, however, continue to appear before the trial Court for which they shall also furnish necessary undertaking before the said Court.
Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
9.12.2009 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge