The court dismissed Lakhan Pal's petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner was accused of executing fraudulent sale deeds by impersonating deceased legal heirs and subsequently transferring the property. The court held that the case was not suitable for extraordinary relief like anticipatory bail.
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 No.M-12421 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 12421 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 7, 2013.
Lakhan Pal
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rajesh Narang. Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
CRM No.24310 of 2013
Requests for placing on record copy of sale deed dated 18.07.2012 as Annexure P5. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
CRM stands disposed of.
CRM No.M-12421 of 2013
The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.178 dated 18.08.2012,
CRM No.M-12421 of 2013
2
under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/506/120B IPC, registered at police station Chandimandir, District Panchkula.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula dismissing bail application filed by the petitioner.
Brief allegations are that, complainant is real son of Lubhaya Ram, resident of New Delhi. Father and uncle, namely, Girdhari Lal of complainant were owners in possession of the land in dispute total measuring 5K-12M situated in village Bhanu, Tehsil and District Panchkula as per the Jamabandi for the year 2007-2008. Lubhaya Ram died in the year 1987. Girdhari Lal, uncle of complainant was unmarried and issueless. He died on 13.01.1996. Complainant is one of the legal heirs of Lubhaya Ram and Girdhari Lal. He alongwith other legal heirs inherited their property. However, no mutation was sanctioned in their names. Petitioner alongwith co-accused hatched a conspiracy to sell and dispose of the land standing in the names of father and uncle of complainant. There are allegations that some persons impersonated Girdhari Lal and Lubhaya Ram and sale deeds no. 2947/1 dated 04.01.2012 and 2975/1 dated 04.01.2012 were executed in favour of present petitioner and co-accused Sanjeev Kumar. Thereafter, present petitioner and co-accused transferred the said land to some other persons.
It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that he is bona fide purchaser for consideration and that he had purchased the
CRM No.M-12421 of 2013
3
land in dispute from persons identified by co-accused i.e. Lambardar of the village, as Girdhari Lal and Lubhaya Ram and lateron he sold the same to other co-accused. It is also submitted that the person to whom he had sold lateron demanded the money back from him and that he had sold his house to those persons without receiving any consideration.
Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent-State on the plea that petitioner is the beneficiary of this fraud. It is further contended that only he knows as to who were the impersonators of Girdhari Lal and Lubhaya Ram, who were already expired, from whom he got the sale deed executed in his favour. It is further contended that he had sold the said property to some other persons just after four months of execution of the sale deed in his favour for profit, i.e. for higher consideration than the consideration for which he had purchased. Hence, it is contended that custodial interrogation of petitioner-accused is necessary to know about the alleged impersonators, who executed sale deed in his favour.
There is force in the argument of learned counsel for respondentState. A fraud has been committed upon the complainant as property belonging to his father and uncle, who had already expired, has been got transferred by petitioner in his name by producing some other persons as Lubhaya Ram and Girdhari Lal i.e. father and uncle of complainant. Thereafter within few months, the said property was sold to some other persons for higher consideration.
Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra-
CRM No.M-12421 of 2013
4
ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner-accused.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Lakhan Pal is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.
May 7, 2013. ‘om’
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a petitioner accused of cheating, forgery, and related offences involving alleged impersonation.
Whether the alleged fraud and subsequent quick resale of property make the case non-ordinary for the purpose of anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lakhan Pal
State of Haryana
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
