Petitioners challenged refusal of pre-arrest bail in a fraud case alleging impersonation to execute a fake power of attorney and sale deed to grab land. The court held custodial interrogation was necessary and dismissed the petition.
The prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M-1258 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-1258 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : April 18, 2011
Jagtar Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. B.S. Sewak, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking prearrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur, vide FIR No.186 dated 9th December, 2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, power of attorney in question was registered before Sub Registrar, Bhikhi on 4th November, 2009. On the basis of same, a sale-deed was executed in favour of Pritpal Singh and Kesar Singh. When the complainant came to know of execution of the power of attorney, he gave a complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur wherein name of petitioners did not find mention. In any case, the investigation has to proceed on the basis of documentary evidence and thus, the petitioners are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
Crl. Misc. No. M-1258 of 2011
Learned State counsel, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. He contended that during investigation, statements of Kesar Singh, Balbir Singh and Pritpal Singh were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. From the said statements, it became clear that Jagtar Singh and Ajaib Singh (petitioners herein) were residents of same village as Puran Singh, and had hatched a conspiracy to get a forged power of attorney executed. According to him, one Raj Singh impersonated as Puran Singh and got power of attorney dated 4th November, 2009 executed in the name of Kulwant Singh. On the basis of said fake power of attorney, a sale-deed dated 30th November, 2009 was executed in favour of Kesar Singh and Pritpal Singh. Raj Singh was later arrested and during interrogation he pointed towards complicity of the petitioners in the commission of crime.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It appears that land measuring 08 Kanals 16 Marlas was owned by one Puran Singh son of Kallu. Puran Singh died way back in 1979. The petitioners, who are residents of same village to which Puran Singh belonged, hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused to grab the land belonging to Puran Singh. One Raj Singh, thus, impersonated as Puran Singh and a fake power of attorney was executed in the name of Kulwant Singh. According to investigation conducted so far, Kulwant Singh executed a sale deed dated 30th November, 2009 in favour of Pritpal Singh. Out of the consideration amount of
Crl. Misc. No. M-1258 of 2011
Rs.4,30,000/- received by the accused, Rs.25,000/- was paid to Raj Singh for impersonating as Puran Singh. Rest of the amount was distributed amongst themselves. It is, thus, clear that petitioners played an active role in the commission of crime. In view of statements of Kesar Singh and Balbir Singh recorded by the investigating agency, affidavits furnished by Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh and statement of Raj Singh, role of the petitioners needs to be thoroughly investigated. During course of arguments, learned State counsel also referred to affidavit of Tarun Rattan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Moonak filed before this court, in which it has been stated that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to unearth the conspiracy and role played by various persons.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case for extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Their custodial interrogation may be required for taking the investigation to its logical end. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
April 18, 2011 'rajpal'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the petitioners are alleged to have impersonated a deceased person to execute a fake power of attorney for land grab.
Whether custodial interrogation is required to unearth the conspiracy and role played by the petitioners in the commission of the crime.
Whether this is a fit case for extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagtar Singh and another
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
