Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1049 (PNJ)

Sukhdev Singh @ Manga v. State of Punjab

2014-07-11

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - As, identical points for consideration to grant the concession of anticipatory bail or otherwise, to the petitioners, are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions bearing CRM No.M-6022 of 2014, titled as Sukhdev Singh @ Manga Versus State of Punjab (for brevity “the 1st Case”) and CRM No.M-11546 of 2014, titled as Aroor Singh Versus State of Punjab (for short “the 2nd case”), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition. 2. The petitioners have directed the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them along with their other main co-accused Puran Singh etc., vide FIR No.91 dated 09.10.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar Rural. 3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context. 5. Precisely, the prosecution, inter alia, claimed that petitioners have introduced complainant Rajwinder Singh, who is a property dealer, to Puran Singh, owner of the land. No other specific role or particular part is attributed to them in the FIR. They have neither received any amount from the complainant nor signed any document. They are not beneficiaries in any manner from the impugned transactions. 6. Moreover, interim bail was granted to enable the petitioners to join the investigation by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Surinder Gupta J.), by virtue of order dated 24.03.2014 in the 1st case. 7. Sequelly, similar order was passed on April, 11, 2014 in the 2nd case as well by this Court. 8. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Surinder Singh, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner Sukhdev Singh @ Manga son of Joginder Singh has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. 8. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Surinder Singh, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner Sukhdev Singh @ Manga son of Joginder Singh has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated at the bar that as per his instructions, petitioner Aroor Singh has also joined the investigation but the Investigating Officer has not intentionally marked his presence. Therefore, taking into consideration the indicated role assigned to the petitioners, to my mind, petitioners deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, keeping in view the totality of facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-inabove and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are accepted. The interim bails already granted to the petitioners, by way of orders dated March, 24 2014 in 1st case and April, 11, 2014 in 2nd case by this Court, are hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 10. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail. 11. However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the investigating agency. In case, they do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this Court. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————