Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1163 (PNJ)

Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-09-06

K.C.PURI

body2012
K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) :— Vide this common order, I intend to dispose of four petitions bearing CRM No. M-22876 of 2012 titled as, “Sukhwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab”, CRM No. M-23339 of 2012 titled as, “Amandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab”, CRM No. M-24556 of 2012 titled as, “Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab” and CRM No. M-26095 of 2012 titled as, “Jagdev Singh vs. State of Punjab”, as they have arisen out of the same FIR. 2. The law was set in motion by moving application by Devender Kaur-complainant to S.S.P, Patiala, in which it is mentioned that five banker cheques bearing Nos. 266134, 266135, 266136, 266137, 266138 of State Bank of India, Branch Chhoti Baradari, Patiala have been embezzled. It is further alleged that accused mentioned in the said application (now petitioners) had stolen her aforementioned five cheques. Jagdev Singh-petitioner filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the Act”) wherein he set up two cheques No.266135 and 266136 for a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- and the matter was compromised on payment of Rs. 3,25,000/- and the complaint was dismissed. Thereafter, the above mentioned accused persons handed over cheque No. 266138 to Shamsher Singh son of Mohinder Singh and again filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act. It is also pleaded that an agreement to sell has been alleged to be executed in respect of kothi of the complainant, whereas she does not even know Shamsher Singh. On these allegations, the FIR was registered. Complainant herself has stated that the case regarding two cheques No. 266135 and 266136 has been settled by paying an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have stated at the bar that none of the petitioners is in possession of cheques No.266134 and 266137. Now the dispute is only in respect of cheque No. 266138. In the complaint itself, it is mentioned that a case under Section 138 of the Act has been filed. The agreement to sell is also on record. The case of the prosecution is that though it bears the signatures of the complainant, but the body of writing was written later on, on all the existing signatures. All these matters have to be adjudicated during the course of trial. The agreement to sell is also on record. The case of the prosecution is that though it bears the signatures of the complainant, but the body of writing was written later on, on all the existing signatures. All these matters have to be adjudicated during the course of trial. So far as petition for grant of regular bail qua petitioner Shamsher Singh is concerned, he is in custody since 13.07.2012. The allegations are yet to be determined during the course of trial as both the parties have set up a counter case against each other. So, the petition for regular bail stands accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of trial Court. 4. So far petitions for grant of anticipatory bail qua petitioners Sukhwinder Singh, Amandeep Kaur and Jagdev Singh are concerned, petitioner Sukhwinder Singh is stated to be a marginal witness of the agreement to sell. It is further alleged that in lieu of agreement to sell, cheque No. 266138 valuing ‘15,30,000/- was issued. So all the matters require thorough consideration during the course of trial. So, in my view, petitioners Sukhwinder Singh, Amandeep Kaur and Jagdev Singh are entitled to concession of anticipatory bail. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions, as envisaged in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure : i) That the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation, as and when required; ii) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and iii) That the petitioners shall not leave the country without prior permission of this Court and shall surrender their passports, if any. All the four petitions stand disposed of accordingly.