Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 887 (PNJ)

Jagjit Singh s/o Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-07-10

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Petitioner Jagjit Singh son of Amarjit Singh has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused and brother Sukhjit Singh, Baljinder Singh son of Bhajan Singh and Akashdeep Garg, vide FIR No.68 dated 12.5.2011, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution case is that complainant Baljinder Singh, his father Sardara Singh and brother Kulwinder Singh were lodged in jail. The litigation between the complainant party and accused Jagjit Singh etc. with regard to the land in dispute was pending. According to the prosecution that the petitioner Jagjit Singh, his brother Sukhjit Singh and Baljinder Singh son of Bhajan Singh accused, hatched a criminal conspiracy to deprive the complainant party from their legitimate right. The accused were stated to have forged the agreement purported to have been executed by Sardara Singh, father of the complainant, in respect of leasing the land in question on lease (Theka) to accused Baljinder Singh son of Bhajan Singh. On the basis of alleged forged document, the accused wanted to get the compensation on account of damage caused to the crop due to flood in the absence of the complainant party. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that on the basis of said forged agreement, they further wanted to illegally take possession over the land, which is in possession of the complainant party. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, cheated the complainant party, prepared the forged lease agreement and tried to use the same as genuine. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner depicted here-in-above. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant application. 6. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant application. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since Sukhjit Singh, brother and co-accused of the petitioner, has already been allowed regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 16.1.2012, so, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. The bare perusal of the indicated bail order would reveal that Additional Sessions Judge has erroneously observed that the matter is purely of civil nature and the fact that Sukhjit Singh accused remained in jail for the last more than 20 days. Therefore, the concession of regular bail was granted to coaccused of the petitioner. To me, erroneously grant of regular bail to brother and co-accused of the petitioner, ipso facto, is not a ground to grant the extraordinary benefit of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Moreover, during the course of preliminary hearing, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. 8. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, has stated at the bar that during the course of investigation by the police, Sukhjit Singh, brother and co-accused of petitioner, disclosed that the alleged forged agreement is in possession of his brother Jagjit Singh (petitioner). The learned State counsel has pointed out that the petitioner did not hand over the forged agreement, without which, the investigation could not be completed. The mere fact that there is a litigation between the parties, would not give a licence to the petitioner to forge the agreement and is not a cogent ground to grant him the concession of anticipatory bail as (contrary) urged on his behalf. 9. On the contrary, the contention of learned State counsel that the petitioner is the main accused in preparing and since he has refused to hand over the forged agreement to the police, so, he is not entitled for concession of anticipatory bail, has considerable force. The original documents, which are in possession of the petitioner, are yet to be recovered and investigation is still in progress. The original documents, which are in possession of the petitioner, are yet to be recovered and investigation is still in progress. Therefore, under these circumstances, to me, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is essential. 10. Moreover, the anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.PC is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby in this relevant connection. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence of forgery, totality of other facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present application for anticipatory bail. ---------0.B.S.0------------