Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: interim regular bail in Sumit Kathuria vs State Of Punjab on 30 September, 2022Matching Fragments
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr.Chadha, learned Sr. Counsel for the complainant have opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the present FIR has been registered after conducting a detailed enquiry by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police City-1, Amritsar. On the basis of that enquiry, it revealed that the petitioner alongwith his parents-Harish Kathuria and Yash Kumari have committed fraud upon the complainant in connivance with each other. They have cheated the complainant by enticing him to enter into the above said agreement to sell in their favour whereas the accused persons are not the owner of the whole land agreed to be sold. During the course of investigation, offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 of the IPC were added vide DDR No.33 dated 30.5.2019 as the copy of Fard Jamabandi of the land in question issued on 25.7.2018 under the signatures of Tarlochan Singh, Circle Patwari, sent through e-mail of the petitioner to the email of the complainant was found to be forged and not issued by the above said Patwari and the petitioner also used to make correspondence with regard to all the transactions in question from his E-mail ID to the email ID of the complainant which shows his full complicity with his parents- Harish Kathuria and Yash Kumari. The petitoner was arrested on 1.6.2019. The laptop and mobile phone used in the commission of crime by him were recovered from his house which have been sent to State Cyber Crime Cell for retrieval of data. On the basis of disclosure statement made by the petitioner, Narinder Kumar, Bikram Singh Gill, who had prepared the forged fard jamabandi and Kapil Bhardwaj, employee of the seller company were also arrayed as co-accused in the present case on 19.6.2019. Final 4 of 12 Challan under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. qua the petitioner has also been presented before the Illaqa Magistrate on 29.7.2019 and the charges have been framed by the trial court on 28.2.2020 against petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner's intention is only to usurp hefty amount of the complainant under the garb of the aforesaid deal which is also apparent from the conduct of the petitioner before this Court that the Petitioner has been granted interim regular bail only on the ground that the petitioner wanted to settle the matter amicably, but after getting the interim relief, the petitioner alongwith his parents backed out from performance of their part.
From the aforesaid statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is manifest that the petitioner got interim bail on the ground that the matter will be amicably settled between the parties.
8 of 12 Thereafter, vide order dated 30.8.2019 passed in this case, it appears that the petitioner has handed over two drafts for total amount of rupees fifty lacs in favour of the complainant in terms of the previous order passed by this Court on 22.8.2019 granting interim regular bail to him.
10. In CRM-M-36011-2019 filed by petitioner's parents- Harish Kathuria and Yash Kumari for grant of anticipatory bail, at the time of issuance of notice of motion, they have been granted ad interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 30.8.2019 passed by this Court on the ground that they are ready to settle the matter amicably.
11. Thereafter on getting interim regular bail by the petitioner and ad interim anticipatory bail by his parents, the matters were adjourned several times for complying with the terms of settlement. Ultimately the matters came for hearing on 29.3.2022 when the counsel for the petitioner produced a demand draft dated 28.3.2022 of rupees twenty lacs in favour of the complainant-Company and submitted that another twenty lacs will be paid on 25th April, 2022. Learned counsel for the complainant accepted the draft subject to reserving his rights. The parties were directed to appear before the Mediator, Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 25.4.2022 for arriving at an amicable settlement and the petitioner was directed to hand over draft of rupees twenty lacs to complainant before the Mediator on the next date fixed for mediation. The complainant and petitioner's father- Harish Kathuria appeared before the Mediator on 25.4.2022 and sought more time to bring demand draft of rupees twenty lacs as per the aforesaid order passed by this Court. Thereafter, the Mediator adjourned the matter for 4.5.2022. On that date also, 9 of 12 petitioner's father Harish Kathuria sought more time to bring the draft of rupees twenty lacs. The Mediator adjourned the matter to 9.5.2022. On that date also petitioner's father Harish Kathuria did not bring the said draft. Consequently, the matters were returned back as unsettled by the Mediator to this Court for decision on merits.
12. It is to be further noticed that even the complainant had filed the civil suit for possession by way of specific performance in respect of the said agreement to sell against the petitioner and his parents which was later on withdrawn by the complainant in terms of the settlement. However, when the mediation failed, then the complainant has moved an application for revival of his suit before the civil court.
13. The mere enjoyment of interim benefit granted by this Court does not in any manner lessen the gravity of offence and allega- tions which need to be considered prima facie on merits. It may per- haps send a wrong message in case regular bail is granted to petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner is writ large in the matter. Mere fact that interim regular bail has been granted to petitioner on handing over rupees fifty lacs and twenty lacs to the complainant does not lead to an inference that the interim regular bail granted by this Court is bound to be confirmed since the deposit of the amount simply enabled the petitioner to explore the possibility of settlement which has failed before the Mediator because of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner who failed to appear before the mediator and the petitioner failed to comply with the order of this Court dated 29.3.2022 whereby the peti- tioner and his parents were directed to hand over a draft of rupees twenty lacs to the complainant on the date fixed for Mediation but 10 of 12 even adjourning the matter several times by the Mediator on the re- quest of petitioner's father- Harish Kathuria, the draft of rupees twenty lacs was not handed over to the complainant and the matter remained unsettled.