Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kartar And Another vs The State Of Haryana on 19 April, 2012
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Crl. Misc. No. M-9779 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:19.04.2012
Kartar and another .....Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the complainant.
****
RAJAN GUPTA, J.(Oral)
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Faridabad vide FIR No.37 dated 3.2.2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are minor and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Their custodial interrogation is not required and they are entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.
Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the prayer. He submits that the modus operandi adopted by the petitioners needs to be investigated. According to him, the petitioners are habitual offenders. They agreed to sell their land to innocent buyers and before execution of sale deed, filed civil suits seeking declaration to the effect that agreement to sell is void as they were minor at the time of execution thereof. According to him, similar modus operandi was adopted by the petitioners twice earlier. He further contends that in case protective orders are given, the petitioners Crl. Misc. No. M-9779 of 2012 (O&M) -2- are not likely to cooperate with the Investigating Agency. Thus, their prayer deserves to be rejected.
Heard.
In the instant case FIR was lodged by Dharmender. He alleged that in the year 2005, his brother Harinder had purchased 13 kanal and 18 marla land in the area of Village Badoli through registry from Gian Chand. Pursuant to same, lease deed was executed in the name of his mother Dayawati. Gian Chand had purchased land from the petitioners and co- accused Jaipal. After purchase of land, a suit was filed by the petitioners against Gian Chand. Later complainant was also impleaded as a party therein. Civil suit was filed on the basis of certain certificates issued to the petitioners showing them to be minor. The complainant had, thereafter, filed Crl. Misc. No. M-35740 of 2011 seeking a direction for taking appropriate action against the accused. Same was disposed of by this Court. The present FIR has been registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Dharmender alleging that the petitioners now want a declaration to the effect that agreement to sell was void as they were minor at that time. According to stand of Investigating Agency, certificates are forged and fabricated and this modus operandi has been adopted to dupe innocent persons.
In view of nature of the allegations, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.
Dismissed.
April 19, 2012 ( RAJAN GUPTA )
renu JUDGE
Crl. Misc. No. M-9779 of 2012 (O&M) -3-