Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 8 April, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-10443 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-10443 of 2013
Date of Decision:- 8.4.2013
Ram Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The compendium of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that, Jagat Singh, father of complainant Sandeep Kumar (for brevity "the complainant") had purchased the plot in question, by virtue of sale deed No.2717 dated 14.1.1982 and took its actual possession from his vendor. After his death on 30.8.1986, complainant, his mother & sisters became its owners in equal shares by way of natural succession, but petitioner Ram Kumar has executed a power of attorney dated 14.7.2003 in favour of Balwan Singh, without any legal right and illegally transferred the plot in dispute, by means of sham transaction/fake sale deed No.4762 dated 24.1.2008 in favour of Santra Devi.
2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that petitioner and his other co- accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, cheated the complainant, CRM No. M-10443 of 2013 2 prepared the false & fabricated power of attorney and sale deed, used the same as genuine and illegally alienated the plot of complainant in an unlawful manner. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.159 dated 25.2.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC and section 81 of the Registration Act, by the police of Police Station City Jind in the manner depicted here-in- above.
3. Having exercised and lost his right before the Additional Sessions Judge, now petitioner Ram Kumar son of Ranjeet has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.
5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, lacks merit.
6. As is evident from the record, that Jagat Singh, father of complainant, had purchased the plot in question, vide sale dated 14.1.1982 and took its actual possession from his vendor. After his death on 30.8.1986, complainant, his mother & sisters became its owners in equal shares, by way of natural succession, but the petitioner has CRM No. M-10443 of 2013 3 executed a power of attorney dated 14.7.2003 in favour of Balwan Singh, without any legal right and illegally transferred the plot in dispute, by virtue of sham transaction/fake sale deed dated 24.1.2008 in favour of Santra Devi.
7. As indicated here-in-above, very serious and direct allegations of committing heinous offence of cheating are assigned to the petitioner. To me, his custodial interrogation is necessary to remove the curtain and unearth the scam. If he is allowed the concession of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of impugned amount, forged documents and case property is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution and police will be deprived from unearthing the scam. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations of cheating against him and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.
9. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail.
8.4.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge