Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharambir Badhana vs State Of Haryana on 5 February, 2013
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
CRM NO. M-38518 OF 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM NO. M-38518 OF 2012 (O&M)
DECIDED ON : 05.02.2013
Dharambir Badhana
...Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate,
for the complainant.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
Dharambir Bhadana son of Shankar Bhadana has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 639 dated 20.11.2010 under Sections 420/467/468/471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Central Faridabad.
The law was set in motion on the complaint made by Gitanjali Sharma w/o Sachin Sharma to the Chief Minister, Government of Haryana against Anil Kumar s/o Jaipal and Dinesh s/o Dharambir. It is mentioned in the complaint that she has taken `10 lacs from the above mentioned Anil Kumar and CRM NO. M-38518 OF 2012 (O&M) -2- Dharambir Bhadana vide Draft No. 004171 dated 23.12.2009 @ 1% per annum. As a security for the same, the above mentioned persons have taken her signatures on the blank papers and stamp papers. Signatures of her husband were also taken on some blank papers. It was assured by the above mentioned persons that when she will return the amount of `10 lacs along with interest, then the above mentioned blank papers and stamp papers would be returned to them. Now she has come to know that accused in connivance with each other have got prepared the forged agreement to sell and receipts of their property i.e House No. 729, Sector 14, Faridabad and Plot No. 2026 Green Field Colony, Faridabad. Plot No. 2026 has been shown to be sold for a consideration of `30 lacs, whereas the value of said plot is Rs.2 crores.
Learned counsel for the complainant at the very outset, has submitted that the petitioner has not approached the Sessions Court and as such, the present petition is not maintainable. However, he is fair enough to concede that this court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction regarding grant of anticipatory bail.
The Full Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in authority "Mohan Lal and others vs. Prem Chand and others" AIR 1980 36 H.P, and the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in authority "Balan vs. State of Kerala" 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 733 have held that bail application can be CRM NO. M-38518 OF 2012 (O&M) -3- moved to High Court in appropriate case. Though it has been mentioned that the normal course should be to approach the institution of hierarchy i.e Sessions Judge but undoubtedly, in appropriate cases, the application also lies before this Court.
The petitioner has alleged that the present case has been registered at the instance of Avtar Singh and on that account, application has been addressed to the Chief Minister, Government of Haryana in stead of police authorities.
In the operative part, the complainant has sought action against Anil Kumar and Dinesh Bhadana s/o Dharambir Badhana-the present petitioner. However, in the body part, it is mentioned that `10 lacs has been taken by her from Anil Kumar and Dharambir Bhadana-the present petitioner. However, the petitioner has placed on record the copy of draft which has been issued at the instance of Anil Kumar only and not at the instance of present petitioner. The civil suit is stated to be pending between the parties. The matter is yet to be decided whether the document i.e Agreement to Sell is genuine one or has been obtained by result of fraud, as alleged in the FIR. No doubt, the application for grant of anticipatory bail to Anil Kumar and Dinesh has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-30133 of 2011 but there were direct allegations for committing fraud against the petitioner. The name of present petitioner-Dharambir Bhadana is mentioned just regarding payment of amount of `10 lacs through CRM NO. M-38518 OF 2012 (O&M) -4- draft, which was found to be issued by Anil Kumar and not by the present petitioner.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Naresh Kumar, is fair enough to concede that petitioner Dharambir Bhadana has joined the investigation. Anil Kumar has already been granted regular bail vide order dated 02.11.2012 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-31911 of 2012.
From the facts of the case, Rs.10 lacs has been received by the complainant and she has not been deprived of any amount, rather she got the amount.
So, taking into account the totality of circumstances, it is a fit case to allow the present petition. So, the petition for grant of anticipatory bail stands accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. :-
i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required ;
ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;CRM NO. M-38518 OF 2012 (O&M) -5-
iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the country, without prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his passport, if any.
FEBRUARY 05, 2013 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE