Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1368 (PNJ)

Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-04-05

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral).:- The present petition has been filed by Jaswant Singh and Harmanpreet Singh (actual name Harmanjeet Singh) for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.256 dated 01.10.2009 registered under Sections 419/420/465/467/468/470/120-B IPC at P.S. city Motwali, Faridkot. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. 3. Briefly stated, the present case was registered on application dated 01.09.2009 submitted by Jaspal Singh to Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot on the basis of inquiry conducted by SP(D), Faridkot. As per allegations, an agreement to sell dated 14.11.2009 for selling the land measuring 47 Kanals 11 Marlas was forged in favour of Jaswant Singh – petitioner No.1. The real owner was impersonated by somebody else at the instance of Jaswant Singh. The agreement was attested by Gurbachan Singh and Sukhdev Singh and an earnest money of Rs.34 lacs has been shown to have been paid out of total consideration of Rs.35,66,250/-. Thereafter on the basis of the said forged agreement to sell, civil suit No.210 dated 16.08.2007 was filed by Jaswant Singh – petitioner No.1 against the real owner i.e. the complainant. In the said civil suit false report of Process Server was allegedly obtained and on the basis of said false report, complainant was proceeded exparte and exparte decree was also obtained by Jaswant Singh – petitioner No.1, who lateron filed execution application and the sale deed was got executed through court and registered in his name. Further allegations are that, as per report of Process Server, petitioner No.2 – Harmanpreet Singh had taken process server to a person representing that he was complainant – Jaspal Singh, whereas he was somebody else and hence petitioner No.2 – Harmanpreet Singh connived with Jaswant Singh, petitioner No.1 and due to this connivance exparte proceedings were initiated and exparte decree was passed against Jaspal Singh – complainant. Hence, it came in the inquiry that both the petitioners in connivance with each other prepared a forged and fabricated agreement to sell and they obtained an exparte decree and got the sale deed of the land belonging to the complainant registered in favour of Jaswant Singh by way of fraud. 4. Hence, it came in the inquiry that both the petitioners in connivance with each other prepared a forged and fabricated agreement to sell and they obtained an exparte decree and got the sale deed of the land belonging to the complainant registered in favour of Jaswant Singh by way of fraud. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No.1 – Jaswant Singh has been continuing in custody since 27.12.2009 and petitioner No.2 has been continuing in custody since 29.12.2009 and that they are no more required for custodial interrogation as challan has already been filed in this case. It is further contended that case is triable by magistrate and that the same will take some time to conclude. It is further contended that there are no allegation against petitioner No.2 and that he is not in any way beneficiary of the sale transaction. 5. Bail application of the petitioners has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from ASI. Kashmir Singh, on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from disclosing true facts in the court if released on bail and that they are also likely to absond. It has been contended that petitioner No.1 was involved in as many as 12 cases out of which 8 are still pending against him for various offences. It has further been contended that out of said cases, FIR No.46 dated 04.03.2004, P.S. Kot Kapura; FIR No.164 dated 14.08.2003, P.S. Kot Kapura; FIR 256 dated 01.10.2009, P.S. city Faridkot; FIR No.27, dated 30.01.2010, P.S. city Faridkot and FIR No.83 of 2004, P.S. city Rania (Haryana) are on the allegations of forgery and cheating etc. It has further been contended that another FIR No.53 dated 04.05.2009, P.S. Sadar Faridkot is also pending against petitioner No.2 – Harmanpreet Singh. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that a complaint against both the petitioners alongwith some other accused i.e. complainat case No.7 of 2008 is also pending for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC in the court of CJM, Faridkot. 6. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Allegations against the petitioners – accused are serious in nature. 6. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Allegations against the petitioners – accused are serious in nature. They are likely to abscond and likely to dissuade the witnesses from disclosing true facts in the court if released on bail. The case is fixed for framing of charge for 06.04.2010 and hence, trial can be expedited. 8. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which concession of bail should be granted to the accused. There is no merit in the instant application for bail filed by Jaswant Singh and Harmanpreet Singh (actual name Harmanjeet Singh) and hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. 9. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and take the same on day-to-day basis and efforts be made to conclude the same within three months from the next date of hearing. Registry is directed to inform learned trial Court about this order. ——————