Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ch. Talib Hussain vs State Of J&K on 1 May, 2013
Author: Muzaffar Hussain Attar
Bench: Muzaffar Hussain Attar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. B.A No. 23 OF 2013 Ch. Talib Hussain Petitioners State of J&K Respondent !Mr. Basit M. Keng, Advocate Mr. P. N. Goja, Advocate ^Mr. B. R. Chandan, GA Honble Mr. Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar, Judge Date: 01.05.2013 :J U D G M E N T :
(Oral) Learned counsel for the respondent has filed latest status report, today, in the open court which is taken on record.
This is an application filed under Section 497-A CrPC with prayer that bail be granted to the petitioner in anticipation of his arrest in FIR no. 09 of 2013 dated 13.02.2013 registered at police Station Channi Himmat, Jammu under Section 420, 467, 406, 468 and 471 RPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in light of the allegations made in the FIR as also in the Objections and the report annexed therewith it become manifestly clear that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the report of the Police Station, the investigation in the case is complete. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners right to personal liberty has to be protected by allowing this application.
Learned counsel also submitted that when the case is registered under Section 406 RPC then it cannot be said that the same person has allegedly committed offence under Section 420, 467, 468 RPC.
Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon the judgments reported in 1991 CRI.L.J. 2808 (Madhya Pradesh), 1989 CRI.L.J. 1958 of this Court, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1225. Learned counsel also referred the judgment titled Siddharam Satingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & ors.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary so as to conclude the investigation. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been avoiding arrest so as to ensure that the investigation of the case is not concluded in accordance with law. Learned counsel also referred to the Police report and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature.
In the FIR 09/2013 registered at police Station Channi Himmat, Jammu it is inter alia alleged by the complainant;
(a) that the accused proclaimed himself to be the owner of land measuring 68 kanals covered by Khasra nos. 427, 428, 542, 545, 546 and 547 situated at Birpur Tehsil and District Samba.
(b) that the accused vide agreement dated 30.06.2012 agreed to sell the aforementioned land to the complainant for consideration amount of Rs. 8,70,000 per kanal and received Rs. 1.25 Crore from the complainant as advance;
(c) that accused had to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant on or before 29th December, 2012 and in terms of the contract for sale, the complainant was to pay balance amount to the accused on or before that date;
(d) In the last week of December, 2012, complainant learnt that accused is not obtaining proper revenue documents for execution of sale deed which constrained the complainant to send a notice to the accused through lawyer asking him to receive the balance consideration amount from the complainant;
(e) the complainant personally met the accused, when the notice evoked no response from him, and he was told by accused that he is not sacred of legal proceedings;
(f) the complainant contacted the Patwari concerned wherein he learnt that accused was not owner of the land, though the accused executed agreement to sell on 31.05.2012 by showing documents, wherein he was recorded as owner in possession of the aforementioned land. Thereafter complainant realized that he has been deceived of the complainant by showing him forged documents of being owner of the aforementioned land and made him to part away with the amount of 1.25 Crore.
The petitioner filed an application under Section 497-A in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jammu wherein initially interim bail was granted to the petitioner, subsequently vide order dated 02.03.2013 the application was dismissed. It is in this backdrop, petitioner has filed the instant application before this Court.
On the basis of material available on record, what emerges is that the investigation of the case is not complete as yet. Certain further steps are required to be taken which inter alia includes taking of specimen signature of the petitioner, for bringing the investigation to its logical conclusion.
The right of personal liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Criminal Justice System guarantees peace in the society. When an FIR is registered, then investigating agency, if has reason to suspect that cognizable offence has been committed, then it is duty bound to investigate the case. One of the essential components of the investigation of the case in many circumstances is arrest of the accused so as to interrogate him in accordance with law, for coming to true and lawful conclusion. The personal liberty of an individual is not an absolute and indefeasible right. Personal liberty of an individual can be curtailed in accordance with law.
The allegations in this case against the petitioner are very serious. It is alleged that he is a very claver person and a land grabber. The investigating agency in such type of cases would require to be given opportunity in accordance with law to conclude the investigation of the case in most appropriate manner.
In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, court is of the view that this application has to be rejected. The reference made to the various decisions of Honble Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts broadly deals with the right of the accused person to seek bail in anticipation of his arrest. These judgments do not lay down law in absolute terms that bail in all circumstances has to be granted to the accused person.
Section 497-A provides that discretion under this Section can be exercised, if the Court thinks it fit, to direct that in the event of the arrest of the accused he shall be released on bail. Before issuing direction under Section 497-A, the Court has to record prima facie satisfaction that the case is fit for issuance of any direction.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is prima facie of the view that it is not a fit case where the direction can be issued under Section 497-A CrPC. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed.
(Muzaffar Hussain Attar) Judge JAMMU 01.05.2013 Vijay