Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 269 (UTT)

BRAHMAPAL SINGH v. GURANVEET SINGH

2015-05-26

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1.An FIR was lodged against accused-respondent Guranveet Singh by informant Brahmapal Singh on 10.05.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC. 2.According to the informant, the land already mortgaged to the bank in connection with various loans taken by the accused-respondent was sold to the informant dishonestly for Rs. 30,00,000/- concealing the actual facts. 3.When the bail was granted to the accused-respondent (applicant in bail application), this Court passed the following order on 09.11.2012: “It was submitted on behalf of the accused-applicant that applicant was the owner of the land situated in village Keshogarh, measuring 3.448 Hectare. The applicant executed a sale deed on 02.09.2008 in favour of informant Brahm Singh in the office of Sub Registrar, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Pursuant to the sale deed dated 02.09.2008, the aforesaid land was mutated in the name of informant Brahm Singh. After a lapse of four years, the informant has lodged the instant FIR due to ulterior motive. It is also submitted that accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. There was unexplained delay of almost four years in lodging the FIR, which has been lodged after due deliberations and consultation. A perusal of Khatauni makes it clear that the property was mortgaged with the bank and on 11.05.2011, on the application of informant Brahm Singh, the Patwari of the area had clearly mentioned in the Khatauni that the name of Guranveet Singh (applicant) be deleted and the name of Brahm Singh (informant) be recorded as owner of the land. It was also mentioned in the Khatauni that the status of mortgage would remain on the purchased land. When the sale deed was executed on 02.09.2008, the informant was well aware of the fact that the land stood mortgaged with the bank and it was agreed between the parties that the informant will clear all the dues which were pending with the bank and, as such the land was sold at a comparatively lesser rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. When the land was mutated in the name of the informant, the informant insisted the accused-3 applicant to pay the amount of the bank, which was taken as agricultural loan, but when the applicant refused to do so, it was agreed between the parties that the loan amount would be paid by the informant. 3,00,000/- per acre. When the land was mutated in the name of the informant, the informant insisted the accused-3 applicant to pay the amount of the bank, which was taken as agricultural loan, but when the applicant refused to do so, it was agreed between the parties that the loan amount would be paid by the informant. Present FIR was lodged by the informant against the accused-applicant in order to pressurize the applicant to pay the loan amount. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant also submitted that the applicant is in jail for more than two months. Bail of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar on 07.09.2012. Learned counsel further submitted that the parties, in all likelihood, will enter into compromise and the complainant will be fairly compensated.” 4.Thereafter, this bail cancellation application was moved by the complainant-informant Brahmapal Singh on 01.03.2013. Reply to the application seeking cancellation of bail was filed. Both the complainant as well as accused-respondent continued to take adjournments on the pretext that they will settle their dispute amicably. 5.Although accused-respondent appeared in person before the Court yesterday and stated that he has paid rupees two lakhs to the complainant, but could not submit any documentary proof in respect thereof. Today complainant Brahmapal Singh is present in person before the Court. He says that he has not been paid anything by the accused-respondent. 6.It may be pointed out here that one of the major grounds for granting bail to the accused-respondent was that the parties will enter into compromise and the complainant will be ‘fairly compensated’. 7.Till date the complainant has not been fairly compensated and that is why this Court considers that since the condition stipulated in bail application dated 09.11.2012 has not been fulfilled, bail granted to the accused-respondent is liable to be cancelled. 8.Bail cancellation application is allowed. Bail of the accused-respondent Guranveet Singh is hereby cancelled. 9.Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar for necessary action at his end.