Dismissed

Balbir Singh Rai v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Oct 2013CRM-M/21757/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench order by Justice Ram Chand Gupta dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner was accused of cheating regarding a property transaction but failed to comply with a prior interim order directing him to join the investigation and get a disputed sale deed cancelled. Consequently, the court withdrew the interim bail and dismissed the curr

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; interim order of October 11, 2013 vacated.

Balbir Singh Rai Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-21757 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 21757 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: October 9, 2013.

Balbir Singh Rai

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. G.S.Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mrs. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.175 dated 18.10.2012, under Sections 419/420/406/465/468/471/120B IPC, registered at police station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶16

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, Fatehgarh Sahib dismissing bail application filed by the petitioner.

¶17

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 11.07.2013

¶18

Singh Omkar 2013.10.11 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-21757 of 2013

¶20

¶21

passed the following order:-

¶22

“Contends that petitioner is bona fide purchaser for consideration alongwith co-accused and that he has received `76 lacs as earnest money by entering the agreement to sell his land and the said money was paid by him to the person who was stated to be Jagdeep Singh as he was produced by his nephew Inderpal Singh and his wife Suman and his voter card and PAN card were also produced and the said person was also identified as the real owner by Paramjit Singh, Numberdar of Sirhind and Ravinder Kumar. Hence, it is contended that rather he has also been cheated as real owner was not personally known to him. It is further submitted that however, now when petitioner has come to know that sale deed was not executed by real owner, he is ready to get the said sale deed cancelled and ready to give any statement before the Court as civil suit is already pending.

¶23

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 13.8.2013.

¶24

However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶25

It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to that order.

¶26

It has been contended by learned counsel for respondent-State, on instruction from ASI Balbir Singh, that petitioner is a Property Dealer and that he is the main accused. It has also been contended that he is the

¶27

Singh Omkar 2013.10.11 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶28

CRM No.M-21757 of 2013

¶29

¶30

main beneficiary of the transaction and that sale-deed is in his favour. It is also contended that he has not given any statement before the court for getting the sale-deed cancelled as per the order of this Court.

¶31

It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that he had paid `76,00,000/- as earnest money in cash at the time of execution of sale-deed and the money was paid to the person, who was stated to be Jagdeep Singh as he was produced by his nephew, Inderpal Singh and his wife, namely, Suman. It is further contended that bail has already been granted to co-accused Gurpreet Singh, who was also one of the purchasers.

¶32

However, petitioner-accused being Property Dealer is the main accused and main beneficiary of this transaction. He was in connivance with co-accused. The real owner has been cheated. Sale-deed of the property belonging to real owner has been got executed in favour of petitioner and co-accused. Co-accused, Gurpreet Singh had taken the plea that it was the present petitioner-accused who had approached him and persuaded him to be one of the purchasers and that the land was purchased by him by making the payment of `25,00,000/- by way of cheque to the person who was produced as owner and hence, bail was granted to him by this Court.

¶33

Interim relief was granted to present petitioner-accused on his undertaking that he was ready to get the sale-deed cancelled and ready to give statement before the court in the civil suit, which is already pending. However, he has not complied with the said direction of this Court.

¶34

Singh Omkar 2013.10.11 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶35

CRM No.M-21757 of 2013

¶36

¶37

Hence, in view of these facts, petitioner-accused is not entitled for extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

¶38

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Balbir Singh Rai is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶39

Interim order dated 11.07.2013 already granted in his favour stands vacated.

¶40

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 9, 2013. JUDGE ‘om’

¶41

Singh Omkar 2013.10.11 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Balbir Singh Rai v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh Rai v. State of Punjab

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

Parandhama Reddy K Vs M/S India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. and Anr.

Satish Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Parminder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Rai Bahadur Makhan Lal Dharamshala Trust Vs Ajay Goel and Ors.

Tarun Katyal Vs State of Punjab