On a petition for pre-arrest bail in a cheating case arising from a disputed property sale, the High Court found prima facie evidence of collusion to frustrate an agreement and dismissed the petition, holding custodial interrogation was necessary.
Petition for pre-arrest bail dismissed; case required custodial interrogation.
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.
CRM-M-23565-2011 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
::::::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-23565-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:05.08.2011.
Karnail Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case registered vide FIR No.82 dated 15.07.2011, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana City.
In brief, the allegations contained in the FIR are that Bachan Kaur entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 61 Kanals 09 Marlas on 18.09.2007 situated at village Alamgir and had received earnest money of `35,00,000/- from the complainant. She marked her thumb impressions on all the pages of the agreement to sell in the presence of marginal witnesses and the sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered on 30.04.2009 on the payment of balance sale consideration. Thereafter, on 19.08.2008, Bachan Kaur executed two transfer deeds ( Tabdeel Malkiats) of ownership of land measuring 34 Kanals 14-1/9 Marlas in favour of accused Nos.2 to 4 and 7 to 9 and of land measuring 04 Kanals 10-2/3 Marlas in favour of accused Nos.2 to 4 and she also executed a sale deed on the same day in favour of accused Nos.5 and 6 in respect of land measuring 07 Kanals 13 Marlas. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 to 9, who are the petitioners before this Court, are the sons and daughters of Bachan Kaur who had the complete knowledge of execution of
[ 2 ]
CRM-M-23565-2011 (O&M)
::::::::::
agreement to sell in favour of the complainant, but despite the fact that she had accepted 35,00,000/- as earnest money, the sale deed was not executed and in order to frustrate the agreement to sell, the land was transferred in favour of the petitioners before the target date. Before approaching this Court, the petitioners had filed anticipatory bail application before the learned Court below which has been dismissed on the ground that the amount of 35,00,000/- is yet to be recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the dispute is of civil nature which has been given the colour of a criminal case. He further submits that the present petitioners had filed a Civil Suit for declaration claiming their title over the disputed property which has been transferred to them by way of two transfer deeds and one sale deed and the complainant has already filed a Civil Suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell and both the Civil Suits are still pending, therefore, the present FIR in 2011 is only a pressure tactic.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in detail and perused the record from which I have found that, prima facie, there is an act of fraud by Bachan Kaur in collusion with the present petitioners because Bachan Kaur had allegedly executed agreement to sell on 18.09.2007 and received the amount of 35,00,000/- as earnest money, but before the target date, she had transferred the entire property in dispute in favour of the present petitioners (her own sons and daughters) by way of two transfer deeds and one sale deed on 19.08.2008 in order to frustrate the agreement to sell and has not returned 35,00,000/- received from the complainant as earnest money.
In my view, the present case requires custodial interrogation of the petitioners, therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
August 05, 2011 vinod*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition for pre-arrest bail should be allowed where the facts prima facie disclose collusion and fraud aimed at frustrating an agreement to sell.
Whether the present case requires custodial interrogation of the petitioners.
Karnail Singh and others
State of Punjab
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
