Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 231 (PNJ)

Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-01-29

INDERJIT SINGH

body2014
Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.200 dated 14.11.2013 registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and no more required for custodial interrogation and prayed for grant of bail. 3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition and stated that keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioners, they are not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State as well as learned counsel for the complainant. 5. A perusal of the allegations made in the FIR shows that the dispute looks like a civil nature between the parties based on agreement to sell. Even one sale deed has been got executed qua one Kanal area out of the land mentioned in the agreement as per the instructions of the complainant. Civil suit regarding the same agreement had already been decided in which the present petitioners have stated that they are ready to execute the sale deed. The allegation against the present petitioners is that they have sold the property to other persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were ready to execute the sale deed but the complainant had refused to get executed the sale deed. The present case is based on documentary evidence. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. They are not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P. And others, [2013(1) Law Herald (SC) 1] : 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Cr.) 261. This judgment having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case, as it relates to quashing of the proceedings. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P. And others, [2013(1) Law Herald (SC) 1] : 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Cr.) 261. This judgment having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case, as it relates to quashing of the proceedings. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the interim order dated 1.1.2014 passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioners is made absolute. However, the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.