Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1309 (PNJ)

Krishan v. State of Haryana

2010-03-26

S.S.SARON

body2010
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 13.4.2006 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 3. The FIR in the case has been lodged by the complainant Bharat Bhushan. It is alleged by the complainant that while he was confined in Rohtak Jail for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC in which he was convicted to imprisonment for 8 years, the petitioner got him beaten and forced him to sell his (complainant’s) house No.1994, Sector 6, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar. The complainant Bharat Bhushan being afraid agreed to execute necessary documents. It was alleged by the complainant that he was called to the ‘Deodi’ of the jail and there he was asked to sign and put thumb impression on stamp paper and some blank papers. According to the complainant he did whatever he was asked to do so as to save his life. He was also photographed. However, since his house was not transferred so guard was arranged to take him to Tehsildar Bahadurgarh. The guard was cancelled by the Deputy Superintendent, Jail. The complainant had refused to go to Bahadurgarh and, therefore, he was again beaten by the petitioner and the brother of the petitioner, namely, Bharat alias Bharte was asked to take possession of the house as it was alleged that possession of the house is that of Krishan Pehalwan. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a false case has been registered by Bharat Bhushan. In fact, Bharat Bhushan while in jail is selling his house to make money by showing its sale. It is submitted that earlier Bharat alias Bharte-brother of the petitioner had filed Criminal Misc. No.M-7773 of 2007 for grant of anticipatory bail. In the said case, it was stated by the learned counsel appearing for Bharat alias Bharte-brother of the petitioner that he had never occupied the house in question and was not in possession of the house. It was also stated at the bar that Bharat alias Bharte-brother of the petitioner would not claim any right whatsoever to the said property. It was also stated that the prosecution agency could otherwise take possession of the house at any time. 5. It was also stated at the bar that Bharat alias Bharte-brother of the petitioner would not claim any right whatsoever to the said property. It was also stated that the prosecution agency could otherwise take possession of the house at any time. 5. Learned counsel for the State in proceedings of the bail application then submitted that the possession of the house would be taken by the Investigating Officer, Karnal on the following day. A reference is also made to the suit for specific performance filed by Jai Hooda against the complainant Bharat Bhushan for specific performance of the house in question on the basis of an agreement dated 15.7.2006. A copy of the plaint (Annexure-P.2) of the said suit has been placed on record. Besides, it is submitted that Bharat Bhushan-complainant entered into an agreement to sell dated 3.5.2007 (Annexure-P.8) with one Manoj Kumar for selling the same house and he received an amount of Rs.10 Lacs as advance out of the total consideration of Rs.20 Lacs. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. 6. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Police has taken possession of the house which was lying vacant. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail as there are 14 cases registered against him; besides, he has forcibly taken possession of the house. It is also stated that in case the petitioner is released, he is likely to influence the prosecution witnesses. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 25.9.2009 and till date not a single witness has been examined. Besides, the petitioner would not claim any right of any kind in the house and would also not make any attempt to take possession of the house. It is submitted that only three cases are pending against the petitioner; besides, the present one and in three cases out of the four that are pending the petitioner is on bail. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner admittedly is in custody since 25.9.2009. According to the complainant Bharat Bhushan he was threatened by the petitioner to get the house transferred in favour of one Pardeep. The said Pardeep is a proclaimed offender. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner admittedly is in custody since 25.9.2009. According to the complainant Bharat Bhushan he was threatened by the petitioner to get the house transferred in favour of one Pardeep. The said Pardeep is a proclaimed offender. In any case, no title deed has been executed in favour of Pardeep. The possession of the house is with the Police. It may also be noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would not claim any right whatsoever in the house. Besides, Jai Hooda has filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.7.2006 in respect of the House No.1994 Sector 6, Bahadurgarh (Jhajjar). The said suit has been filed by Jai Hooda against the complainant Bharat Bhushan for specific performance. The complainant-Bharat Bhushan has also entered into agreement to sell dated 3.5.2007 (Annexure-P.8) of the same house to one Manoj Kumar son of Khushi Ram for a consideration of Rs.20 Lacs and Rs.10 Lacs have already been received by the complainant. Therefore, at this stage it would be premature to comment one way or the other as regards the allegations of the complainant-Bharat Bhushan. The case is triable by a Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist class. Out of seven prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution none has been examined till date. The charge has been framed on 18.3.2010. 9. In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient to admit the petitioner to bail. However, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court shall be admitted to bail. One of the sureties to be furnished by the petitioner shall be that of a respectable person of the village of the petitioner who shall undertake along with the petitioner that while on bail the petitioner shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. ——————