Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 714 (PNJ)

Ravinder Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2001-07-19

M.L.SINGHAL

body2001
JudgmentJudgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. Facts have been given in sufficient detail in Crl. Misc. No. 25806-M of 2001 in which Siri Niwas co-accused is the petitioner who has claimed anticipatory bail in the same case (FIR No. 181 dated 26.6.2001 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC at PS City Jagadhari). 2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Smt. Chandra Wati executed will dated 31.5.91 in favour of Shri Niwas which was a genuine will. It was submitted that Shri Ajay Mohan Paliwal, Finger Print Expert compared the purported signatures of Smt. Chandra Wati appearing on will dated 31.5.91 with those appearing on will dated 11.5.91 and her admitted signatures appearing on the plaint and wakalatnama and civil suit Smt. Chandra Wati v. Siri Niwas filed in the court of Shri C.B. Jaglian, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhari and found that the purported signatures of Smt. Chandra Wati appearing on will dated 31.5.91 tallied with her admitted signatures on the plaint and wakalatnama of civil suit Smt. Chandra Wati v. Siri Niwas filled in the court of Shri C.B. Jaglian, Additional Senior Sub judge, Jagadhri. He found that the admitted signatures of Smt. Chandra Wati appearing on the plaint and wakalatnama of civil suit Smt. Chandra Wati v. Siri Niwas filed in the court of Shri C.B. Jaglian, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhari did not tally with her purported signatures on will dated 11.5.91. It was submitted that there are two reports of different finger print experts; one supporting Siri Niwas and the other supporting Lakhmi Chand. It was submitted that the science of handwriting is not an exact science and therefore, there can be no tilt in favour of Lakhmi Chand so as to deny anticipatory bail to Siri Niwas. It was submitted that the opinion of Shri N.K. Jain, Finger Print Expert, Ambala could not form the basis of declining anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 3. It was submitted that the opinion of Shri N.K. Jain, Finger Print Expert, Ambala could not form the basis of declining anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 3. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Shri G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that will dated 31.5.91 being set up by Siri Niwas was false, forged and fabricated as if Smt. Chandra Wati had executed any will in favour of Siri Niwas on 31.5.91, he would have pleaded this fact in suit for permanent injunction titled Siri Niwas v. Wasdev Rattan Sharma and Smt. Bimla Devi in para 1 of the plaint of that suit, Siri Niwas had pleaded that he along with the heirs of his mother Smt. Chandra Wati is co-owner with defendant Smt. Bimla Devi in the lead measuring 29 kanal 1 marla in which Smt. Bimla Devi has got 1/2 share. It was submitted that he filed that suit on 12.3.2001. It was submitted that if will dated 31.5.91 had been in existence, he would have pleaded that he and Smt. Bimla Devi had equal share in land measuring 29 kanal 1 marla and that he would not have pleaded that he along with the heirs of his mother Smt. Chandra Wati is co-owner with Smt. Bimla Devi in land measuring 29 Kanal 1 marla in which Smt. Bimla Devi has 1/2 share. It was submitted that in the application for partition filed by Smt. Bimla Devi, he filed written statement on 13.1.97. In that written statement also, he pleaded that in the share of Smt. Chandra Wati her heirs were owners. He did not plead in that application for partition that he had 1/2 share. It was submitted that from this fact only conclusion that should be drawn is that Siri Niwas had no will in his favour dated 31.5.91 said to have been executed by his mother Smt. Chandra Wati and that he forged that will afterwards in league with the attending witnesses of the will named Ravi Kumar and Sant Kumar with a view to usurp the entire 1/2 share of this land which is a valuable land situated in the urban area of Jagadhari. It was submitted that Ravi Kumar nd Sant Kumar should not be allowed anticipatory bail. It was submitted that their custodial interrogation is necessary with a view to bring to the fore how this forgery took place. It was submitted that Ravi Kumar nd Sant Kumar should not be allowed anticipatory bail. It was submitted that their custodial interrogation is necessary with a view to bring to the fore how this forgery took place. It was submitted that without custodial interrogation, the truth will remain in obscurity and will remain shrouded in mystery. It was submitted that it is custodial interrogation that will bring truth to the fore. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to State represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 268 where it was held that "custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is on anticipatory bail. In a case like this, interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in getting the useful information". He drew my attention to Chawli v. State of Haryana 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 851 where it was held that accused must make out a special case for getting anticipatory bail. Power of anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional cases and subject to limitations of Section 437 Cr.P.C. in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bimal Krishna Kundu, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 462, anticipatory bail allowed to the accused was cancelled. Allegation against the accused was that he was running printing press and was leaking question papers of Public Service Commission. It was felt that offence involved serious conspiracy affecting career of millions of students and, therefore, the anticipatory bail allowed to him was cancelled by the Honble Supreme Court. 4. In the case in hand, there are two conflicting reports of the finger print experts; one showing that will dated 31.5.91 was genuine and will dated 11.5.91 was forged; and the other showing that will dated 31.5.91 was forged and the will dated 11.5.91 was genuine. Faced with this position, learned AAG, Haryana assisted by Shri Dhuriwala submitted that Shri Ajay Mohan Paliwal, Finger Print and Hand Writing Expert belongs to Muzaffar Nagar (UP) where Siri Niwas is married and that his opinion should not be given weight because it is biased. 5. Suffice it to say, this is not the stage where it could be said that the opinion of this finger print and hand writing expert should be adopted and the opinion of that finger print and hand writing expert should be ignored. 5. Suffice it to say, this is not the stage where it could be said that the opinion of this finger print and hand writing expert should be adopted and the opinion of that finger print and hand writing expert should be ignored. Fact remains that there are two conflicting reports of two different finger print and had writing experts - one going against the accused and the other going in his favour. 6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are said to have merely attested the will. They are not beneficiaries under the will. Beneficiary under the will is Siri Niwas who is son of the testatrix and they are not alleged to have conspired with Siri Niwas to share the property belonging to Smt. Chandra Wati. It was submitted that the question whether the will dated 31.5.91 is false, forged and fabricated or whether the will dated 11.5.91 is false, forged and fabricated is pending consideration of the civil court in which one finger print expert has reported that will dated 11.5.91 is genuine while the will dated 31.5.91 is forged; white the other expert has reported the other way round. It was submitted that in the fitness of things, the petitioners should be allowed anticipatory bail as there can be reasonable doubt about the commission of offence by them. Further, their custodial interrogation is not required as the case hinges upon documents. 7. It was further submitted that in anticipation of their arrest, they moved anticipatory bail application in the court of Shri V.K. Bakshi, Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari. Vide order dated 26.6.2001, Shri V.K. Bakshi, Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari stayed their arrest and directed them to surrender within 15 days before the trial court and apply for regular bail during the said period of 15 days. It was submitted that on 4.7.2001, they surrendered and moved an application for regular bail. On their application for regular bail, the Magistrate remanded them to police custody vide order dated 4.7.2001 for one day. On 5.7.2001, learned Magistrate did not allow them bail. He became of the view that they did not deserve to be release on bail when the investigation was in progress. Their application for regular bail was dismissed. On their application for regular bail, the Magistrate remanded them to police custody vide order dated 4.7.2001 for one day. On 5.7.2001, learned Magistrate did not allow them bail. He became of the view that they did not deserve to be release on bail when the investigation was in progress. Their application for regular bail was dismissed. They were directed to surrender in the court on 11.7.2001 in terms of the order dated 26.6.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari. They did not surrender before the court on 11.7.2001, instead, they applied for anticipatory bail on 9.7.2001 which was dismissed by Shri D.S. Sheoran, Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari vide order dated 13.7.2001 and he directed them to surrender before the trial court. They did not surrender before the trial court and instead came to this court and prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to them. 8. It was submitted by the learned AAG, Haryana assisted by Shri G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate that they could not apply for anticipatory bail. Instead they should have surrendered before the Magistrate. It was submitted that their prayer cannot be treated as one for anticipatory bail. 9. In my opinion, learned Additional CJM, Jagadhari should not have directed them to surrender before the court on 11.7.2001 in terms of the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari dated 26.6.2001 when that order had come to an end and they had surrendered before Additional CJM, Jagadhari on 4.7.2001. Additional CJM, Jagadhari should either have declined bail to them absolutely and remanded them to police custody or judicial custody or he should have allowed them bail. After declining bail to them, he should not have directed them to surrender in court on 11.7.2001 when he was Duty Magistrate and the accused had surrendered before him on 4.7.2001 and he had remanded them to police custody for one day i.e. till 5.7.2001. We should not go so far as this technicality is concerned. We should try to find out whether on the facts, petitioners should or should not be allowed bail. It may be mentioned here that they have already suffered one days police remand. During that period, they must have been interrogated. It would be unjust to send them to custody over again. 10. It is not a case where custodial interrogation of the accused will serve any purpose. It may be mentioned here that they have already suffered one days police remand. During that period, they must have been interrogated. It would be unjust to send them to custody over again. 10. It is not a case where custodial interrogation of the accused will serve any purpose. There will be no injury to the cause of investigation if the accused are called upon to join the investigation and they are questioned during the period they are with the police on every dimension of the case. It is, therefore, ordered that they shall be admitted to bail by the learned Ilaqa Magistrate, Police station City Jagadhari on their executing personal bonds and surety bound in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each. In the personal bond to be executed by them, this condition will be stipulated that as and when they are called upon to join the investigation through a notice in writing, they shall join the investigation.