Allowed

Ram Kishan @ Jiwan Ram v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Dec 2023CRM-M/43940/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to the appellant in a case involving alleged forgery and cheating related to illegal No Due Certificates. The court imposed a condition restricting the appellant to only one prepaid mobile number linked to his Aadhar card.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail order dated 04.09.2023 made absolute, subject to the condition of using only one prepaid SIM linked to Aadhar card.

Ram Kishan @ Jiwan Ram Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-43940-2023

¶2

220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-43940-2023 Reserved on: 22.11.2023 Pronounced on: 07.12.2023

¶4

Ram Kishan @ Jiwan Ram

¶5

...Pe!!oner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the pe!!oner.

¶10

Ms. Geeta Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶11

****

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta!on	Sec!ons
237	07.08.2023	City Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh	420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC

¶14

The pe!!oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above had come up before this Court under Sec!on 438 CrPC seeking an!cipatory bail.

¶15

Vide order dated 04.09.2023, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim an!cipatory bail to the pe!!oner which is con!nuing !ll date.

¶16

Facts of the case are being extracted from status report dated 21.11.2023 filed by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh:-

¶17

“4. That the brief facts of the case are that on 07.08.2023, one complaint bearing No.807PG-SPL dated 14.07.2023 was received in the O/o Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh from Rajesh son of Ra,an Singh, r/o Mohalla Lala Wala Kuyan, ward no. 6, Mahendergarh wherein it was men1oned that in the area of Municipal Commi,ee, Mahendergarh, No Dues Cer1ficate had been illegally issued in respect of unauthorized area situated near Mohalla Mahayachan a6er declaring the same to be authorized and property ID No.7GK34827, 7GPHLPC8, 7GQ00491, and 740399J2 had been released in name of one Hitesh Kumar son of Prabhu Dayal resident of Mohalla Bass thereby causing loss of revenue to the Municipal Commi,ee, Mahendergarh hence, a prayer was made

¶18

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶19

¶20

CRM-M-43940-2023

¶21

to take suitable ac1on against the culprits a6er extensive enquiry. A6er receiving the above complaint, a inquiry was conducted and therea6er it was sent to Police Sta1on, City Mahendergarh through post for registra1on of the FIR and on the basis of this complaint, the present case vide FIR no. 237 dated 07.08.2023 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC was registered at police sta1on city Mahendergarh against Hitesh Kumar owner of the property and Sohan Lal ME, Harish Kumar computer operator and Manoj Kumar JE who are the employees of Municipal Commi,ee, Mahendergarh.”

¶22

Pe!!oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and is also voluntarily agreeable to the condi!on that !ll the conclusion of the trial, the pe!!oner shall keep only one mobile number, which is men!oned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fi=een days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The pe!!oner contends that custodial interroga!on and pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and family.

¶23

Counsel for the pe!!oner submits that the pe!!oner was not named in the FIR, and he is not the beneficiary. Hitesh Kumar is the beneficiary who was arrested along with co-accused Satbir. As such, the arrest of the pe!!oner is no longer required. He further submits that the case is based on documentary evidence, and the evidence against the pe!!oner has come up in the statement of co-accused Hitesh Kumar, which has no eviden!ary value. He further submits that the pe!!oner has commiAed no forgery because the officials issued no Due Cer!ficate. He further submits that Harish Kumar owned the data and that JE and the secretary were responsible for checking it. There was no allega!on that any bribe was paid to Harish Kumar or other government officials; as such, there is no ques!on of malicious intent. In para 6-a, the pe!!oner submits that the en!re case is because of poli!cal vendeAa. His wife is a member of the Municipal CommiAee. It would be relevant to extract paras no.6-b and 6-c of the bail pe!!on, which reads as follows: -

¶24

“6-b. That the co-accused-Hitesh is owner and in occupa1on of land bearing Khewat Number 577 Khatoni number 686 Mu, 40//16/1 (4-16) 25/1/2/1 and Killa (3-11) and number Khewat Number 578 Khatoni Number 687 Mu. And Killa Number 41//21/3/2/1/1 (3-6) 36//66 share area 1 Kanal 16 Marle and Khewat Number 579 Khatoni Number 688 Mu. and Killa Number 41//20 (9-12) 37/192 share area 1 Kanal 17 Marla total area 12 Kanal O Marla situated in the village Mo. Bass Town Mahendergarh Tehsil and District Mahendergarh by virtue of Jamabandi 2019-2020 and Muta1on Number 8623. Above men1oned area 40//16/1 complete (4-16) complete 25/1/2/1 and 41//20/3/2/1/1 (3-11) (116) leaving aside West Tower and 41//20 (1-17) West is the owner of total area 12 Kanal 0 Marla. Above men1oned land is free from all

¶25

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶26

¶27

CRM-M-43940-2023

¶28

sorts of encumbrances. That there is no dispute with regard to ownership and the said land was gi6ed/released by grandfather of co- accused-Hitesh to him directly. Even it is not the case of prosecu1on that the said Hitesh is not the owner of the said land.

¶29

6-c. That being the owner of the said land, co- accused-Hitesh wanted to sell the land being in need of money and as such entered into agreement to sell with three persons namely pe11oner-Ram Kishan, Ajit Singh on Satbir and dated 10-01-2022 vide Annexure P-4. That as per the recitals of agreement to sell co-accused-Hitesh has received sum of Rs. 10000000/- in words Rupees One Crore from second party i.e. pe11oners and others, out of which sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- in words Rupees Seventy Lacs only vide cheque Number 064134, 064135 drawn on Canara Bank Mahendergarh and vide cheque Number 000075 drawn on H.D.F.C. Bank Mahendergarh and cheque Number 764669 of S.B.I. Bank Mahendergarh on dated 10.01.2022 and sum of Rs. 3000000/- in words Rupees Thirty Lacs only has been received in cash from 1me to 1me. Further as per the agreement to sell the co-accused-Hitesh was bound to execute the sale deed/registry of the said land in the name of either the vendees i.e. Ram Kishan, Satbir and Ajit Singh or any other person(s) of choice of said Ram Kishan, Satbir and Ajit Singh.”

¶30

Pe!!oner claims that he is the land's purchaser, which JE, and the Secretary have approved. Even OTP has been received by such officers, and the pe!!oner cannot be said to have commiAed any offence. The further argument is that Satbir and Ajit Singh, who were the purchasers, had no role in issuing the No Due Cer!ficate, which had been issued a=er comple!ng all the formali!es. Pe!!oner further submits that co-accused Satbir has been arrested and now has been released on bail vide Annexure P-9, and as such, he is also en!tled to the same relief.

¶31

On the other hand, State counsel submits that the pe!!oner was at par with Satbir, who was arrested and granted regular bail under Sec!on 439 Cr.P.C., whereas the pe!!oner is seeking an!cipatory bail, and he is not en!tled to such bail.

¶32

I have heard counsel for the par!es.

¶33

Allega!ons against the pe!!oner are that he got a property transferred in favour of co-accused Hitesh Kumar and asked his Munim Som DuA to apply for No Due Cer!ficate and aAach relevant documents. It is undisputed that the applica!on was made by Som DuA, who was working as Munim of the pe!!oner. It has also transpired that the pe!!oner was one of the prospec!ve buyers, and it is at his instance that Som DuA had applied for a No Due Cer!ficate. Allega!ons are that all such transac!ons had caused a loss of Rs.20 lacs to the Municipal CommiAee. The inves!ga!on is complete, and no recovery is to be effected from the pe!!oner. Regarding the tampering, the officer in charge is directed to rec!fy the error immediately. So far as the role of the pe!!oner is concerned, he was a prospec!ve buyer, but the evidence collected against

¶34

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶35

¶36

CRM-M-43940-2023

¶37

him is insufficient based on which he should be sent for custodial interroga!on or pretrial incarcera!on, which is necessary.

¶38

9-A. Given above, pe%%on stands allowed . Interim order dated 04.09.2023 is made absolute subject to following condi!ons:-

¶39

The pe!!oner is directed not to keep more than one prepaid SIM, i.e., one prepaid mobile phone number, !ll the conclusion of the trial; however, this restric!on is only on prepaid SIMs [mobile numbers] and not on post-paid connec!ons or landline numbers. The pe!!oner must comply with this condi!on within fi=een days of release from today. The concerned DySP shall also direct all the telecom service providers to deac!vate all prepaid SIM cards and prepaid mobile numbers issued to the pe!!oner, except the one that is men!oned as the primary number/ default number linked with the AADHAAR card and further that !ll the no objec!on from the concerned SHO, the mobile service providers shall not issue second pre-paid SIM/ mobile number in the pe!!oner’s name. Since, as on date, in India, there are only four prominent mobile service providers, namely BSNL, Airtel, Vodafone-Idea, and Reliance Jio, any other telecom service provider are directed to comply with the direc!ons of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, issued in this regard and disable all prepaid mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the pe!!oner, except the main number/default number linked with AADHAR, by taking such informa!on from the pe!!oner’s AADHAR details or any other source, for which they shall be legally en!tled by this order. This condi!on shall con!nue !ll the comple!on of the trial or closure of the case, whichever is earlier. In Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 655 , [para 45], while gran!ng bail under Unlawful Ac!vi!es (Preven!on) Act, 2002, Supreme Court had directed imposi!on of the similar condi!on, which reads as follows, “(d) Both the appellants shall use only one Mobile Phone each, during the !me they remain on bail and shall inform the Inves!ga!ng Officer of the NIA, their respec!ve mobile numbers.”

¶40

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the inves!ga!ng agency from further inves!ga!on as per law.

¶41

In case the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta!on arraigns another sec!on of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new sec!on prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the sec!ons men!oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec!on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec!ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec!ons men!oned above, then, in that case, the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe!!oner no!ce of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶42

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶43

¶44

CRM-M-43940-2023

¶45

Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶46

There would be no need for a cer1fied copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe11oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a,est it to be a true copy. In case the a,es1ng officer wants to verify the authen1city, such an officer can also verify its authen1city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a,es1ng bonds.

¶47

All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed.

¶48

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶49

07.12.2023 Jyo! Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶50

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶51

Ram Kishan @ Jiwan Ram v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishan @ Jiwan Ram v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Vs State of Haryana

Charanjit Singh@Channi Vs State of Punjab

Shubham Vs State of Ut Chandigarh

Sandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Anil Vij Vs State of Punjab