The High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejected the plea for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a forgery case involving a disputed land sale deed. The bench found insufficient ground to grant bail without expressing an opinion on the civil merits.
Petition for anticipatory bail 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-11622 OF 2013 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 26TH APRIL, 2013
Renu Bala
…. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…. Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Crl. Misc. No.22720 of 2013
The application is allowed and Annexures P-6 and P-7 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case
Accused-Renu Bala has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.11 dated 12.03.2013 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Baretta, District Mansa.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
According to prosecution version, Manjit Kaur and Balbir Kaur purchased 41 Kanals 8 Marlas land from Nasib Singh vide registered
CRL. MISC. NO.M-11622 OF 2013
- 2 -
sale deed No.487 dated 14.07.2008. The sale deed was scribed by petitioner’s co-accused Tarsem Chand who is husband’s brother of the petitioner. Prosecution version is that Tarsem Chand and the petitioner tampered with the said sale deed. In the original sale deed Manjit Kaur and Balbir Kaur were purchasers of 1/2 share each but by tampering they have been depicted to be purchaser of 1/3rd share each and petitioner Renu Bala has been depicted to b purchaser of the remaining 1/3rd share.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, in fact, the complainant party has tampered with the sale deed by changing the shares of Manjit Kaur and Balbir Kaur from 1/3rd share each to 1/2 share each. It was pointed out that this fact is clear from photostat certified copy of the sale deed obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Makhan Singh, contended that the sale deed has been tampered with by Tarsem Chand scribe in conspiracy with the petitioner and even the original sale deed in question has been recovered from Tarsem Chand. It was submitted that Renu Bala had no link with the complainant party and, therefore, there was no question of joint purchase of the land by petitioner with complainant party. Reference was also made to subsequent sale deed dated 02.01.2009 whereby the complainant party sold the aforesaid land to Raj Kumar etc. and the sale deed wherein Manjit Kaur and Balbir Kaur were depicted to be owners of half share each, was also scribed by Tarsem Chand, who was well aware of the impugned sale deed dated 14.07.2008.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Tarsem Chand scribe has played mischief in conspiracy with the petitioner because
CRL. MISC. NO.M-11622 OF 2013
- 3 -
Tarsem Chand is none else but husband’s brother of the petitioner Renu Bala. There is no link of Renu Bala with complainant party i.e. purchasers Manjit Kaur and Balbir Kaur. Prima facie, it cannot be said that petitioner purchased the land jointly with the complainant party. Here it may be mentioned that vide another sale deed No.486 of even dated (14.07.2008) Manjit Kaur and Balbir Kaur had also purchased 1/2 share in another 41 Kanals 8 Marlas land and the petitioner is not purchaser with them in the said sale deed. If Manjit Kaur and Balbir Kaur had purchased 1/3rd share each in the disputed land vide sale deed No.487, Tarsem Chand while scribing the subsequent sale deed dated 02.01.2009 would not have mentioned their shares as ½ share each because he would have very well known that they had 1/3rd share each whereas the remaining 1/3rd share was of his own sister-in-law i.e. petitioner.
Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, including civil litigation between the parties, there is no sufficient ground to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Dismissed.
26th April, 2013 (L. N. MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient ground to extend anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a fraud case involving tampering with a sale deed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Renu Bala
State of Punjab
L. N. MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
