Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 August, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-18186 of 2012.
Date of Decision : 17.8.2012.
Darshan Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Sindh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab assisted by
Angrej Singh, Kanungo Jaitu.
Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate,
for the complainant.
NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
This is an application for anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 39 dated May 12th, 2012 under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Jaitu, District Faridkot.
2. Allegations, in brief, against the petitioner are that in the year 2001 to 2007, he was posted as Patwari in Circle Bishandi, District Faridkot. He prepared jamabandi for the year 2003-04 pertaining to land bearing khewat No.229 khatauni No. 579 and khasra No. 220 ad-measuring 18 kanals 1 marla situated in village Bishandi showing Lal Chand son of Daulat Ram son of Fatta Mal and Lachhmi Narain son of Shankar Mal as owners in equal shares. In the coloumn of cultivation name of Roor Singh son of Jeeva Singh son of Mehtab Singh was mentioned as per the register Parat Sarkar. However, in the register Parat Patwar, the aforesaid land was shown to be owned by Mohar Singh son of Nattha Singh son of Jeeva Singh under his self-cultivation, that is, nephew of Roor Singh. It was revealed when wife of Harbans Singh (deceased) brother of Mohar Singh got the copy of the jamabandi in the year 2010. It was alleged that the entries in the Parat Patwar CRM M-18186 of 2012. (2) were changed by the petitioner to help Mohar Singh. Mohar Singh murdered Harbans Singh and was convicted and sentenced. A civil suit is also pending with regard to the land in question between Mohar Singh and wife of Harbans Singh.
3. The solitary submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the copy of the jamabandi delivered to the wife of Harbans Singh as per Register Parat Patwar was under the signatures of Bhagwan Singh Patwari on February 10th, 2010 duly attested by Tehsildar, Jaitu and at that time, petitioner was not the Patwari so, he should be allowed anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel and Sh. R.S. Chahal, counsel for the complainant have stated that he prepared false jamabandis which is a grave offence. Not only that, another FIR bearing No. 74 dated July 14th, 2012 has been registered against the petitioner in Police Station Jaitu with regard to manipulation of revenue record.
5. To see the authenticity of the aforesaid jamabandis, this Court called the original record which was brought by Angrej Singh, Kanungo Jaitu. He produced the attested copies of both the jamabandis entered in Parat Sarkar and Parat Patwar (Annexures P-7 and P-8). Both were prepared by the petitioner and supports the case of the prosecution that the entries made therein were different from each other as detailed above. It is the case of the prosecution that the record was fabricated by the petitioner to help Mohar Singh.
6. The power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty, then power is to be exercised under Section 438. It is also to be seen that the course of investigation is not obstructed. A perusal of FIR shows that there appears to be sufficient material evidence CRM M-18186 of 2012. (3) against the petitioner, which dis-entitles him to pre-arrest bail. Thus, the application is dismissed.
7. The observations made in this order are confined to the disposal of the present petition, and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits nor shall have any bearing at the time of final disposal of the matter by the trial Court.
17.8.2012. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE