Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 806 (PNJ)

Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-06-26

S.P.BANGARH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. S.P. Bangarh, J.: (Oral) - This order shall dispose of all three petitions filed by the petitioners, who have been named as accused in FIR No.38/ 25.04.2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468,471 readwith section 120-B, IPC of Police Station Julkan, on the ground that they are innocent. 2. It is the case of the respondent that the complainant is the owner of the disputed land from whom Ajaib Singh, petitioner of CRM No. M-14109 of 2012 got executed general power of attorney No.23/4 dated 12.09.2011 fraudulently and later sold the land belonging to the complainant to petitioners in CRM No.M-16145 of 2012 and CRM No. M-16137 of 2012 and also he executed special power of attorney in favour of Surinder Pal Kaur, who has filed CRM No. M-16137-2012. So, it is the case of the prosecution that when the alleged power of attorney was not validly executed document, that could not have empowered Ajaib Singh, petitioner to sell the land belonging to the complainant on the basis thereof. 3. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioners are guilty of commission of heinous crime, therefore, their custodial interrogation is required for recovery of the general power of attorney, special power of attorney and the alleged sale-deeds having been executed by Ajaib Singh, petitioner in CRM No. M-14109 of 2012 in favour of other petitioners. 4. The petitioners approached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and were refused anticipatory bail by that Court and therefore, they have approached this Court, through instant three petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent have been heard and record perused with their assistance. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent mainly contended that the petitioners are guilty of heinous crime and therefore, their custodial interrogation is very much imperative for recovery of the alleged general power of attorney, special power of attorney and the sale-deeds. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that civil matter has been blown out of the proportion and as the civil court is already seized of the matter, it is yet to be decided as to whether the alleged general power of attorney was valid or not. 8. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that civil matter has been blown out of the proportion and as the civil court is already seized of the matter, it is yet to be decided as to whether the alleged general power of attorney was valid or not. 8. There is verity in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners while the contention of learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab is devoid of merit, as it is yet to be decided by the Civil Court as to whether the general power of attorney is genuine or not. 9. Un-disputably, Sarjit Singh, complainant has already filed Civil Suit No. 4997 dated 14.02.2012 before the Civil Court at Patiala against the petitioners for declaration to the effect that he continues to be owner and occupier of the disputed land albeit, general power of attorney bearing vasika No.23/4 dated 12.09.2011, which was not executed by him in favour of Ajaib Singh. 10. So, on the face of it, the general power of attorney cannot be said to be forged and fabricated document and that being so, the resultant sale-deeds executed by Ajaib Singh, petitioner in favour of other petitioners cannot be said to be invalid on the face of it. 11. When that is so, custodial interrogation of the petitioners shall be an abuse of process of law, who can be interrogated, sans being taken into custody. Even the general power of attorney and the sale deeds can be recovered from the petitioners without taking them in custody. Even the certified copies of these documents can be taken by the police from the office of the concerned Sub Registrar under rules. It is also not the case of the complainant that he did not sign the general power of attorney. 12. So, in these circumstances, it is a fit case where the benefit of anticipatory bail must be given to the petitioners. 13. Resultantly, all the three petitions are accepted and it is ordered that in the event of arrest, arresting/investigating officer shall release the petitioners on bail, to his satisfaction, subject to compliance of conditions enshrined in Section 438 (2), Cr. P.C. 14. Needless to say, the order dated 15.06.2012, whereby, interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners is made absolute. 15. A copy of this order be placed on the files of other connected matters.