Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 618

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Pratibha Manchanda & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1793 of 2023 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8146 2023] [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) D.No.20936 of 2022]
Decided On : 07-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv. Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Adv. Mr. Ajaypal Singh Kullar, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, A.A.G. Mr. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Singh, Adv. Mr. S Vinod, Adv. Mr. Shivam Pal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Anticipatory bail – Relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights – While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent misuse of power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and interests of justice.
(2) Cancellation of bail should be done only for substantial and compelling reasons, however, setting aside an erroneous bail order is altogether different from cancelling bail.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights – While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent misuse of power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and interests of justice – While right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, court must also consider gravity of offence, impact on society and need for a fair and free investigation – Court's discretion in weighing these interests in facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome. (Paras 16 and 19)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B – Anticipatory bail – Grant of – Land scam – Alleged offences of forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth Crores of rupees are grave in nature – While it is extremely important to protect personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon Court to analyze seriousness of offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation – Subject Land is a prime property situated in National Capital Region – It would be incongruous to accept transfer of ownership rights in an immovable property merely on execution of a power of attorney – Sub-Registrar and his officials were obligated to verify ownership rights before registration of sale deed – Fact that vendee agreed to pay such massive sums of money to Respondent No. 2 without obtaining original records as of now casts a shadow over legitimacy of transaction – Appellants are elderly NRI couple – There is a serious allegation of undervaluation of land at the time of execution of allegedly fraudulent sale-deed – Appellants have seemingly fallen prey to a well-orchestrated conspiracy hatched to rob them of their highly valuable property – In such cases where victims of a crime, on account of their old age and geographical distance, are unable to secure justice on their own, it falls upon Courts and State to carry out their solemn duty to ward off injustice and restore faith of one and all in rule of law – Material facts which go to root of matter were not brought to notice of High Court. (Paras 16, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B – Anticipatory bail – Grant of – Land scam – Cancellation of bail should be done only for substantial and compelling reasons, however, setting aside an erroneous bail order is altogether different from cancelling bail – Land scams in India have been a persistent issue, involving fraudulent practices and illegal activities related to land acquisition, ownership, and transactions. Scammers often create fake land titles, forge sale deeds, or manipulate land records to show false ownership or an encumbrance-free status – It is essential to ensure that all material facts are brought on record – Facts of the case speak for themselves and element of criminality cannot be ruled out at this stage – Custodial interrogation is imperative to unearth truth – Joining investigation with a protective umbrella provided by pre-arrest bail will render exercise of eliciting truth ineffective in such like case – Impugned order passed by High Court granting pre-arrest bail to Respondent No. 2 set aside – Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to undertake investigation forthwith. (Paras 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal arises from a judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 31.05.2022, whereby the High Court allowed petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 in FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
SIT shall conclude the investigation as early as possible and not later than two months from date of this order. Commissioner of Police, Gurugram shall be personally responsible for monitoring the day to day investigation.
Result : Appeal allowed. Order of High Court set aside.

JUDGMENT

Surya Kant, J.

1. Application seeking permission to file the SLP is allowed. Leave Granted.

2. The instant appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) dated 31.05.2022, whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘Cr.P.C’) and granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 in FIR No. 113 of 2022, dated 16.03.2022, registered at PS Badshahpur, district Gurugram, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’).

A. FACTS

3. The abovementioned FIR was lodged by the Appellants against Respondent No. 2 and other co-accused individuals, namely, Shel Narang, Bhim Singh and Vinod. According to the contents of the FIR, the Appellants are senior citizens who were owners and had possession over the land bearing rect. No. 55, Killa No. 3/1 (79), 4/1 (713), measuring 15 Kanal 2 Marla, situated within the revenue estate of Village Begampur Khatola, Tehsil Kadipur, District Gurugram (hereinafter, ‘Subject Land’) for over a period of 30 years. The Appellants claim that they never sold the Subject Land to anyone nor have they ever executed any power of attorney (hereinafter, ‘GPA’) in favor of any third party. The area has, in their version of events, always been unequivocally under their possession and has never been ceded in any form or fashion to people outside the family.

4. On 28.02.2022, Appellant No. 2 went to Patwar Bhawan, Gurugram to obtain revenue papers for the Subject Land. He discovered there only that a person named Bhim Singh Rathi had approached the halqa patwari to sanction mutation of the aforementioned land. The application for mutation was, as per the Appellants, based on a forged and fabricated sale deed bearing vasika No. 11493 dated 24.02.2022 (hereinafter, ‘2022 Sale Deed’). After looking into the matter further, Appellant No. 2 learned that the said sale deed was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Kadipur, District Gurugram and was executed by Respondent No. 2. The execution in question was based on yet another, purportedly, forged and fabricated GPA bearing Vasika No. 13907 dated 18.09.1996 (hereinafter, ‘1996 GPA’), registered in the office of Sub-Registrar-V, South East Delhi.

5. The Appellants, as alluded to earlier, have adopted the stance that they never executed or registered any GPA in favor of Respondent No. 2, nor are they even acquainted with him in any form or fashion. Instead, both the 1996 GPA and the 2022 Sale Deed were completely fraudulent documents created by Respondent No. 2 and the remaining co-accused named in the FIR, in collusion with other officials at the Sub-Registrar’s office. These actions were carried out in complete subterfuge and without any involvement of the Appellants.

6. The Appellants claim that they are in possession of the original sale deed for the Subject Land, and a true copy of it was attached to the complaint. Upon examining the 2022 Sale Deed, it was apparent to them that the accused had failed to provide a PAN Number, which is mandatorily required for a valid sale deed. Furthermore, there was no mention of the 1% amount of Tax Deducted at Source (hereinafter, ‘TDS’) being deposited, which also forms part of the requirements for execution and registration of a sale deed.

7. The complaint also mentioned the current market value of the Appellants’ land, measuring 15 Kanal 2 Marla, as being approximately not less than Rs. 50 crores. However, in the 2022 Sale Deed, the sale consideration was shown as an abjectly low and meager amount of Rs. 6,60,62,500/-, which was significantly below its actual asking price. Moreover, the Appellants had not received even this miniscule amount even if the 2022 Sale Deed was hypothetically considered to be valid. Thus, this document was clearly created by Respondent No. 2 and the co-accused in collusion with the witnesses, the scribe, and officia