Allowed

Randeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jul 2009CRM-M/13003/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to a 70-year-old petitioner alleged to have been duped into selling property. Relying on her age and willingness to cooperate in the underlying civil suit to set aside the sale deed, the court deemed it a fit case for bail and made the interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 12.5.2009 granting interim bail is made absolute. The petitioner is directed to join investigation.

Randeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

¶2

CRM M 13003 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on July 21,2009.

Randeep Kaur

-- Petitioner

vs.

State of Punjab

--Respondent.

Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma,Advocate,for the petitioner

¶9

Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG,Punjab.

¶10

Mr.P.S.Hundal,Commandant/husband of complainant in person.

¶11

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:

¶12

The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C') in a case, registered vide FIR No.365 dated 01.7.2008, under Sections 419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC, at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Mohinder Singh had five children, namely Kanwal Nain Singh, (husband of the petitioner), Harbir Kaur (complainant) Sukhbir Kaur, Varinder Kaur and Harjit Kaur. All the children are married. Mohinder Singh in December 1973 left behind 47 kanals 12 marlas of land situated in village Khabe, Dogran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran, which is jointly owned by aforesaid son and daughters of late Mohinder Singh. Kanwal Nain Singh (husband of the petitioner) aged about 80 years executed a registered power of attorney in respect of his share in the land aforesaid. The petitioner was approached by one Gurinder Singh,Patwari and her own nephew Apinderjit Singh @

¶14

CRM M 13003 of 2009 (O&M) -2-

¶15

Babi son of Iqbal Singh (her elder brother-in-law) to sell her land situated in village Khabe Dogran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran as she is permanent resident of Tehsil Karanpur, District Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. The petitioner executed a sale deed dated 16.5.2008 but did not know that unpartitioned share of the sister of her husband has also been included by the said persons. He further submits that since the petitioner came to know about this fraud committed by Apinderjit Singh @ Babi and Gurinder Singh Patwari, she made complaint to Deputy Commissioner and S.S.P,Tarn Taran on 26.6.2008 alleging that she has been paid only Rs. 2,00,000/- and she never wanted to usurp share of sister of her husband. He further submits that basically, it is a civil dispute in which the complainant (Harbir Kaur) has already filed a civil suit for declaration for setting aside the sale deed dated 16.5.2008 on the ground that she is owner to the extent of 1/5^th share in the land which has been sold vide registered sale deed dated 16.5.2008 to which she was not a party.

¶16

Vide order dated 12.5.2009, this Court issued notice and granted interim bail to the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner has joined the investigation.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner filed Crl.Misc. No. 33712 of 2009 in order to place on record copy of plaint in the civil suit filed by Harbir Kaur, complainant against her sisters and brother including the petitioner for challenging the sale deed dated 16.5.2008, which was allowed vide order dated 15.7.2009 and documents were taken on record.

¶18

On 12.5.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has no objection if the sale deed in question is cancelled. He maintained the said stand and submits that the petitioner will cooperate

¶19

CRM M 13003 of 2009 (O&M)

¶20

-3-

¶21

in the civil suit and get the sale deed set aside.

¶22

On behalf of the complainant, her husband P.S.Hundal has put in appearance and has argued that the petitioner has committed fraud, therefore, bail application should be dismissed.

¶23

Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail in which interim bail was granted by the trial Court on 24.10.2008, and the petitioner had joined the investigation. However, vide order dated 18.4.2009, bail application was dismissed by the trial Court.

¶24

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without commenting on the merits of the case but keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is 70 years old lady, who herself is alleged to have been duped, has shown her readiness and willingness to get the sale deed dated 16.5.2008 cancelled. Thus, I find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the order dated 12.5.2009 is hereby made absolute. The petitioner is however directed to join investigation as and when called and shall abide by the provisions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶27

July 21,2009 RR

Randeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gurdarshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab

Fakir Chand and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Satpal @ Sattu and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Vikas Kumar Vs State of Punjab