This judgment considers a petition for pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. alleging forgery in a property dispute. The bench dismissed the plea, emphasizing that allegations of forgery and forcible possession precluded bail despite pending civil suits.
The petition for 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-23679 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: May 27, 2011
Sandeep Kumar and another
…..Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr.Narinder Lucky, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab
..
RAJAN GUPTA, J. : (Oral)
This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under sections 447/511/420/467/468/120-B IPC vide FIR No.52 dated 16.6.2010 at police station Lambra, District Jalandhar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that from a perusal of the FIR no offence is made out against the petitioners. Since civil proceedings in the court regarding the matter are already pending, therefore, petitioners are entitled to concession of bail.
Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer. He submits that during the pendency of the petition report from the FSL has been received. According to which, document of delivery of possession did not bear the signatures of the complainant. The same had actually been forged by the petitioners in connivance with co-accused. He also referred
Crl.Misc.No.M-23679 of 2010
2
to affidavit dated _______ filed by Balwinder Singh Bhandal, Director FSL, Punjab, SAS Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The complainant alleged that both the petitioners had agreed to purchase a plot measuring 45 marlas from him. They made payment of Rs.1 lakh in advance. Another amount of Rs.4 lakhs was paid thereafter. Thus, earnest money of Rs.5 lakhs was paid. Date of registration of sale deed was fixed as 30th April, 2010. Total consideration was to be Rs.22 lakhs. The petitioners, however, forged another agreement to sell showing delivery of possession of the plot on receipt of earnest money itself. However, there was no such condition in the original agreement. Thereafter, they took forcible possession of the plot and removed the trees standing therein. After receipt of the forensic report, which showed that signatures of Ram Parkash Jassal on the agreement were forged, order granting ad interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioners was vacated on April 21, 2011. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that petitioners are entitled to concession of prearrest bail as their custodial interrogation is not required and they are ready to co-operate with the investigating agency.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that concession of prearrest bail cannot be granted to the petitioners. They are alleged to have forged an agreement to sell by appending signatures of complainant Ram Parkash Jassal therein and
2
Crl.Misc.No.M-23679 of 2010
3
thereafter taken forcible possession of the plot in question. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
May 27, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted when allegations involve forgery of a sale agreement and forcible possession.
Whether the presence of pending civil proceedings and voluntary cooperation with the investigation dispensable with pre-arrest bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sandeep Kumar and another
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
