Dismissed

Sant Ram v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Oct 2012CRM-M/31026/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case accused of cheating a land deal partner by receiving consideration and fraudulently selling the land to another person. The court dismissed the petition citing the heinous nature of the offence and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Sant Ram Vs State of Haryana and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CRM No.M-31026 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-31026 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:15.10.2012

¶5

Sant Ram .....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶9

Present: Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Sameer Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents-State.

¶11

Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶12

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶14

Concisely, the facts and the material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition for bail and emanating from the record are that, petitioner-Sant Ram son of Kesh Ram was the owner of the land, in question, measuring 04 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of the village Ullahawas, District Gurgaon. He entered into a collaboration agreement dated 02.04.2009 with the complainant-Company M/s Pulse Estate Pvt.Ltd.(for brevity “the complainant-Company”). It was claimed that since the petitioner-accused was in the need of money, so, he again agreed to sell his land to the complainant-Company and executed an agreement to sell dated 11.05.2010 in this regard, for a total sum of Rs.6.38 lacs. Having received the entire sale consideration, instead of executing the sale-deed

¶15

CRM No.M-31026 of 2012 2

¶16

in favour of the complainant-Company, the petitioner-accused has fraudulently again sold the same very land in dispute to one Sunil Kumar accused, by way of subsequent sale-deed dated 17.05.2010.

¶17

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant-Company claimed that on the one hand, the petitioner-accused has already received the total sale consideration of his land in dispute, in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 11.05.2010 and instead of executing the sale-deed, on the contrary, he has cheated the complainant-Company, misappropriated the amount and fraudulently sold the same very land to one Sunil Kumar accused. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of Amia Kumar on behalf of the complainant-Company, the present criminal case was registered against the accused, including the petitioner, by means of FIR No.203 dated 30.08.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Badhshahpur, District Gurgaon, in the manner depicted hereinabove.

¶18

Having exercised and lost his right, now the petitioneraccused has preferred the present petition for anticipatory bail in the indicated case, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

¶20

As is evident from the record that, there are direct allegations

¶21

CRM No.M-31026 of 2012 3

¶22

attributed to the petitioner-accused that firstly he executed the collaboration agreement dated 02.04.2009. He again agreed to sell his land and executed an agreement to sell dated 11.05.2010 and received a total sale consideration of Rs.6.38 lacs from the complainant-Company. Instead of executing the sale-deed in its favour, the petitioner-accused has fraudulently sold the same very land to Sunil Kumar accused and thus, cheated and misappropriated the amount of the complainant-Company. 6. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the heinous offence, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in this case, to recover the amount of sale consideration and other documents. If he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then the police will be deprived from recovering the amount, documents and effective investigation, which would naturally adversely affect and weaken the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest of the main accused in such heinous offences. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail.

¶23

Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations of commission of pointed offences, to my mind, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in

¶24

CRM No.M-31026 of 2012 4

¶25

the obtaining circumstances of the case. It cannot possibly be disputed that, the tendency and frequency of cheating, misappropriation and repeatedly selling the land by the landlords, without any legal right, have been tremendously increasing day by day, which needs to be curbed.

¶26

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.

¶27

Needless to mention that, nothing observed hereinabove would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the

¶28

present petition.

¶29

October 15, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Sant Ram v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Ram v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Sawaran Singh and Ors. Vs Pseb through Its Secy. and Ors.

Jagjit Singh Alias Jagga Vs State of Punjab

Jasvir Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Samual Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Meena Kumari and Others Vs Kurukshetra University and Another

Roop Lal Vs Union of India and Ors.