Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 208 (RAJ)

Ajeet Singh S/o Suren Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-17

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT / ORDER : 1. The petitioners have filed these anticipatory bail applications apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint No.67/2014 of Police Station, Taranagar, District Churu, in which the Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar took cognizance against the petitioners Ajeet Singh, Jasvinder Singh and Gurbhej Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and against the petitioner Pannalal for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 120-B IPC and summoned them through warrant of arrest. 2. The anticipatory bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioners – Ajeet Singh and Gurbhej Singh was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Ratangarh, District Churu vide order dated 10.08.2018, whereas the anticipatory bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioners – Pannalal and Jasvinder Singh was dismissed by the said court on 24.08.2018. 3. Brief facts of the case are that non-applicant Murari Lal filed a Criminal Complaint No.67/2014 on 15.10.2014 before the Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar, District Churu while alleging that 69 Bighas and 17 Biswas of agriculture land situated in Khasra No.398 at village Sahva is recorded in the name of his father Bhagwan Das and Mahesh Kumar. Bhagwan Das died on 13.09.2004 and the said agriculture land was mutated in favour of non-applicant Murari Lal and his brother Mahesh Kumar on 01.01.2006. It is alleged that after death of Bhagwan Das, the Managing Committee, Gurunanak Teela hatched a conspiracy and with the aid of Stamp Vendor – Ram Prasad Lata purchased a stamp in the names of deceased Bhagwan Das, Mahesh Kumar and non-applicant No.2 without obtaining their signatures in the Stamp Sale Register and thereafter prepared a surrender deed of 1 Bigha of agriculture land belonging to respondent No.2 and his brother for the purpose of surrendering it in the name of State Government for making a way to Gurunanak Teela. It is alleged that one Laxmi Chand Lakhara certified the fabricated signatures of deceased Bhagwan Das, Mahesh Kumar and Murari Lal-non-applicant No.2 done on stamp papers and petitioner-Pannalal identified them though they were not present on the day of execution of that forged surrender deed. It is also alleged that the then Tehsildar - Mahesh Kumar Sharma and subsequent Tehsildar Vijendra Singh Chahar without inquiring the genuineness of surrender deed, ordered on 27.08.2014 that the land belongs to the State Government. 4. It is also alleged that the then Tehsildar - Mahesh Kumar Sharma and subsequent Tehsildar Vijendra Singh Chahar without inquiring the genuineness of surrender deed, ordered on 27.08.2014 that the land belongs to the State Government. 4. On receiving the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar conducted enquiry and after recording the statements of the complainant and other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioners as mentioned above and summoned them through warrant of arrest. The anticipatory bail applications preferred on behalf of the petitioners have been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Rajnagar, District Churu. Hence, these anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 CrPC. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. H.S. Kharlia assisted by Mr. D.S. Thind has submitted that so far as petitioners Ajeet Singh, Gurbhej Singh and Jasvinder Singh are concerned, the police conducted an enquiry as per the direction of Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar and submitted a report on 02.05.2018, wherein it is specifically mentioned that there is no evidence available as to who had presented the forged surrender deed before the Tehsildar. Learned counsel has also submitted that as a matter of fact Baba Ajeet Singh has been looking after the management of Gurunanak Teela only from the year 2012, whereas petitioners Gurbhej Singh and Jasvinder Singh were elected as Office Bearers of Trust of said Teela in the year 2015. 6. It is argued that the petitioners are not connected with the management of the trust in any manner prior to the years 2012 and 2015, whereas the alleged forged surrender deed was prepared and presented before the Tehsildar concerned in the year 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that none of the witnesses in his/her statements recorded under Sections 200 or 202 CrPC named the abforesaid three petitioners and the trial court without any evidence available on record against the petitioners ordered for summoning them through warrant of arrest after taking cognizance against them for the aforesaid offences. 7. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case when no evidence is available on record against the petitioners – Ajeet Singh, Gurbhej Singh and Jasvinder Singh to connect them with the commission of crime, they are entitled for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail. 8. 7. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case when no evidence is available on record against the petitioners – Ajeet Singh, Gurbhej Singh and Jasvinder Singh to connect them with the commission of crime, they are entitled for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail. 8. So far as petitioner – Pannalal is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he being the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sahva acted on the advice of Panchas and it cannot be said that he alone did anything wrong. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record, which suggests that the petitioner – Pannalal hatched a criminal conspiracy with other accused-persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that petitioner-Pannalal is 87 years’ old man and the cognizance has already been taken against him, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in arresting him. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that petitioners – Ajeet Singh, Gurbhej Singh and Jasvinder Singh are the persons, who are managing the Gurunanak Teela and with the aid of forged surrender deed, the land belonging to the complainant-non-applicant No.2 and his brother was surrendered for the purpose of making a way to Gurunanak Teela. It is argued that the above named petitioners are direct beneficiaries and, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail. 10. So far as petitioner-Pannalal is concerned, it is argued that he was Sarpanch at the relevant time and identified the signatures of deceased Bhagwan Das, his son Mahesh Kumar and the complainant-respondent No.2 while knowing that they were not present and Bhagwan Das had already died in the year 2004, therefore, his role is apparent in commission of crime and he is also not entitled for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail. 11. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record. 12. It is not in dispute that names of the petitioners – Ajeet Singh, Gurbhej Singh and Jasvinder Singh have not been figured in the complaint filed by respondent No.2. Even during the course of investigation, the police had recorded the statements of certain witnesses, however, none of them had named or specified the role of the above named three accused-persons. It is not in dispute that names of the petitioners – Ajeet Singh, Gurbhej Singh and Jasvinder Singh have not been figured in the complaint filed by respondent No.2. Even during the course of investigation, the police had recorded the statements of certain witnesses, however, none of them had named or specified the role of the above named three accused-persons. It is also to be noticed that even the witnesses in their statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar did not name the petitioners and specify their role. 13. So far as role of the petitioner-Pannalal is concerned, admittedly he was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sahva at the relevant time and evidence of this effect is available on record that he had identified the deceased Bhagwan Das and his sons though they were not present, however, it is not in dispute that the petitioner-Pannalal is 87 years of age; cognizance has already been taken against him by Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar and his custodial interrogation is not required. 14. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners under Section 438 CrPC. 15. Accordingly, all these three bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Ajeet Singh son of Suren Singh, Gurbhej Singh son of Lakhvinder Singh, Pannalal son of Gopiram and Jasvinder Singh son of Bhagwan Singh in connection with Cr. Complaint No.67/2014, Police Station, Taranagar, District Churu, they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii) They shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.