Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 301 (PNJ)

Sampuran Singh @ Bhura Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-02-07

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

body2014
Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.: (Oral) – This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 87 dated 22.05.2013 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Lalru, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali). 2. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 3. On perusal of the FIR dated 22.05.2013, it is revealed that a complaint was lodged on 26.04.2011 against the petitioner as also a number of co-accused as regards the sale of land at village Toffapur. Allegation is that on 05.12.2009 Rs. 10 lacs as earnest money in cash was handed over to the present petitioner, namely, Sampuran Singh. Complainant has further alleged that a promise was held out to enter into an agreement to sell on 16.01.2010 pertaining to the sale of land for which Rs. 10 lacs as earnest money had been handed over. Such agreement having not materialised, allegation of impersonation of the real owner has been raised. 4. Even as per the prosecution version, the date of handing over of the earnest money is stated to be 05.12.2009, whereas the complaint was lodged on 26.04.2011., For certain inexplicable reasons, the FIR as regards paying earnest money of Rs.10 lacs on 05.12.2009 has thereafter been registered on 22.05.2013. 5. Learned State counsel would seek to justify such delay after taking instructions from ASI Phool Chand that the matter was under enquiry during such interregnum. 6. Be that as it may, there is no dispute as regards the fact that the complainant himself has set up version of having given earnest money of Rs. 10 lacs on 05.12.2009 and in relation to which an agreement to sell was to be scribed on 16.01.2010 whereas the complaint has been lodged on 26.04.2011. Under such circumstances, the possibility of false implication of the present petitioner cannot be ruled out. 7. That apart, there is no reference to any receipt bearing signature of the present petitioner to substantiate payment of earnest money of Rs.10 lacs from the complainant to Sampuran Singh. 8. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.10.2013. Learned State counsel would apprise the Court that the challan has already been presented on 15.01.2014 and as such the investigation in the matter is complete. 8. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.10.2013. Learned State counsel would apprise the Court that the challan has already been presented on 15.01.2014 and as such the investigation in the matter is complete. Trial is at the very initial stage and as such will take time to conclude. 9. In an over view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer made in the present petition deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 10. Petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali. Petition allowed.