Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1075 (PNJ)

Paramjeet Kaur v. State of Haryana

2021-06-28

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation. 2. This is a petition for cancellation of bail granted in FIR No. 178 dated 27.4.2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala. 3. The brief facts are that an application was moved by Paramjeet Kaur against Karandeep Sharma and his father. The complainant is widow of Ved Parkash who died on 5.10.2018. The allegations are that Karandeep Sharma prepared a forged 'Will' of Ved Parkash. The Will was not registered. The motive for preparing a forged Will was to deprive Paramjeet Kaur and her daughter from inheriting the property of Ved Parkash. FSL report was obtained which is quoted below: “The possibility that the person who wrote red enclosed standard signature stamped and marked A1 to A5 did not write the red enclosed questioned signature similarly stamped and marked Q1, cannot be ruled out.” 4. It would be worth noting here that the matter with regard to genuineness of the Will is sub-judice before the Civil Court. 5. Accused-Karandeep Sharma was granted anticipatory bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala on 4.5.2021 subject to his joining investigation. While granting bail, pendency of civil litigation was considered and that the petitioner is not a hard core criminal. In case of non-cooperation by Karandeep Singh, the Investigating Officer was to report to the Court on 11.5.2021. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below erred in granting anticipatory bail. It was a case where custodial interrogation is necessary. The report of FSL is an indicator of the forgery of the Will. 7. Learned counsel for the State on instructions submits that investigation in the case is complete; the challan stands presented on 28.5.2021; the accused duly co-operated during the investigation and there is no misuse of the relief of anticipatory bail granted to the accused. 8. In Myakala Dharmarajam and others etc. v. State of Telangana and another, AIR 2020 SC 317 , the Supreme Court considering its earlier decision in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 laid down the scope of power to be exercised in cancellation of bail. 8. In Myakala Dharmarajam and others etc. v. State of Telangana and another, AIR 2020 SC 317 , the Supreme Court considering its earlier decision in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 laid down the scope of power to be exercised in cancellation of bail. It was held that it is necessary to examine whether the order passed by the Sessions Court granting bail is perverse and suffers from the infirmities which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice or there was likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below: “7. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 this Court held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to. 8. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra).” In the present case, the investigation is complete; the challan stands presented; the 'Will' is subject-matter of civil suit and there are no allegations that the accused would be in a position to tamper with the evidence. The case is set up on the basis of a document which is already in possession of the investigating agency. (supra).” In the present case, the investigation is complete; the challan stands presented; the 'Will' is subject-matter of civil suit and there are no allegations that the accused would be in a position to tamper with the evidence. The case is set up on the basis of a document which is already in possession of the investigating agency. No case is made out for cancellation of bail granted to the accused. The petition is dismissed.