Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2228 (PNJ)

Manish Goyal v. State of Punjab

2009-12-22

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J. - This petition, under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the petitioner, for the grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No. 339, dated 16.12.08, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that, as per the allegations, in the FIR, the power of attorney dated 11.02.05, was forged by the accused by putting up some impostor, in place of Ramnik Gupta, complainant, in connivance with his co-accused. He has further submitted that the present FIR, has been got registered, by the complainant with mala fide intention. He has further submitted that no loss, has occurred, to the complainant, nor any gain, has been caused, to the accused-petitioner. He has further submitted that the property, in dispute, alongwith other property, belonged to Smt. Rukmani Devi, who died, on 01.05.91. He has further submitted that Saroj Goyal, Neelam Gupta, Sudershan Goyal and Nirmala @ Bimla Aggarwal, sisters of Ramnik Gupta, executed two relinquishment deeds, with respect to the residential as well as commercial properties, on 23.02.98 and 06.10.98, leaving their shares, in favour of their four brothers namely Raj Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Ramnik Gupta. He has further submitted that, by way of memorandum of family settlement, dated 17.08.2000, all the four brothers inherited the properties, in equal shares. He has further submitted that, as per the family settlement, property mentioned, at Sr. No. 4 of the petition, came to the share of the complainant. He has further submitted that after the execution of the memorandum of family settlement, on 17.08.2000, three brothers namely Raj Kumar, Sushil Kumar, and Ramesh Kumar, jointly sold their share, by way of execution of sale deeds dated 20.03.03 and 24.08.04, in favour of Veena Rani, Janak Raj, and Kulwarit Rai respectively. He has further submitted that the dispute, is, with regard to the property, situated in Dehradun, measuring 3385 sq. feet (314.53 sq. mts) at 3-EC Road, Dehradun (Uttranchal), for which, power of attorney, was executed, by four brothers and, sisters, in favour of Manish Goyal, accused-petitioner, and which was not the subject matter of the aforesaid deeds. He has further submitted that the dispute, is, with regard to the property, situated in Dehradun, measuring 3385 sq. feet (314.53 sq. mts) at 3-EC Road, Dehradun (Uttranchal), for which, power of attorney, was executed, by four brothers and, sisters, in favour of Manish Goyal, accused-petitioner, and which was not the subject matter of the aforesaid deeds. He has further submitted that, the accused-petitioner, did not impersonate Ramnik Gupta, complainant. He has further submitted that Ramnik Gupta, was only having share of 39 sq. mts, in the property, in dispute, the value whereof, comes to Rs. 2 lacs. He has further submitted that the instant FIR, has been got registered, with a view to force the petitioner, to persuade Ashish Aggarwal son of Ramesh Aggarwal, the complainant, in FIR No. 24 dated 25.02.05, to effect a compromise with the complainant party. He has farther submitted that the petitioner, has been wrongly involved, in the instant case. He has further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner, is not at all required, as no recovery is to be effected from him. He has farther submitted that the petitioner is, thus, entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, has submitted that Manish Goyal, accused-petitioner, in whose favour, the power of attorney, was allegedly executed, and, who is the beneficiary of the same, very well knew that Ramnik Gupta, complainant, one of the alleged executants of the power of attorney, was not present, at the time of the execution thereof, but, some impostor, was put up in his place, and, thus, he fabricated the same. He has further submitted that it is not a fit case, in which, the anticipatory bail, should he granted. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case, in which, anticipatory bail, should be granted, to the accused-petitioner, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The case of the complainant, is to the effect, that he never executed the power of attorney, referred to above, in favour of Manish Goyal, accused-petitioner, nor did he appear, before the Sub- Registrar, but, some impostor, was put up, in his place, and the said document, was fabricated, by him (Manish Goyal). The case of the complainant, is to the effect, that he never executed the power of attorney, referred to above, in favour of Manish Goyal, accused-petitioner, nor did he appear, before the Sub- Registrar, but, some impostor, was put up, in his place, and the said document, was fabricated, by him (Manish Goyal). The questioned signatures of Ramnik Gupta, complainant, appearing, on the power of attorney, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and, ultimately, a report was received, that the same, did not tally with his specimen/standard signatures. Even, it is evident, from the photo-impression of the photographs, affixed on the power of attorney, on the right side of the endorsement, made by the Sub-Registrar, that the person, who was put up, in place of Ramnik Gupta, covered his face, so as to avoid his identification. Since the power of attorney, was executed, in favour of Manish Goyal, it is he, who could tell, as to who was the person, who was put up, in place of Ramnik Gupta, for getting the power of attorney executed, on the basis whereof, the sale deeds, were executed, later on. The custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner, is eminently required. with a view to elicit information, from him, as to who impersonated Ramnik Gupta, complainant, for the purpose of execution of the power of attorney; and to unearth the deep rooted conspiracy, resulting into the alleged fabrication of the power of attorney. Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated, than questioning a suspect, who is well ensconced with a favourable order, under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like the one, in hand, effective interrogation of the accused, is of tremendous advantage, in disinterring many useful informations, and also materials, which would have been concealed. Success, in such interrogation, would elude, if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by pre-arrest bail order, during the time, he is interrogated. Very often interrogation, in such a condition, would be reduced to a mere ritual. The very investigation, shall be hampered and impeded, in case, the accused- petitioner, is released, on anticipatory bail. Even otherwise, anticipatory bail is an extra-ordinary remedy, which can be invoked, in exceptional circumstances. This case does not present any exceptional circumstance, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail. The very investigation, shall be hampered and impeded, in case, the accused- petitioner, is released, on anticipatory bail. Even otherwise, anticipatory bail is an extra-ordinary remedy, which can be invoked, in exceptional circumstances. This case does not present any exceptional circumstance, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations; heinous and grave nature of the offences; and the attending circumstances, in which the alleged offences were committed, no ground, whatsoever, is made out for the acceptance of Criminal Misc. No. M-5240 of 2009. The same, thus, deserves to be dismissed, and the order dated 26.02.09, granting interim anticipatory bail, to the accused-petitioner, is liable to be vacated. 6. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 5240 of 2009, is dismissed. The order dated 26.02.09, granting interim anticipatory bail, to the accused-petitioner, is vacated. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. Petition dismissed.