Anticipatory bail can be granted if the accused is a first offender and there is no prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, subject to stringent conditions to ensure compliance.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.

CRM-9463-2024

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the accompanying affidavit along with document is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main case

420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC (Section 120B IPC and 7, 8 of PC Act, 1988 added later on)

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 21 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and are also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fifteen days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the nature of allegations, the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary.

5. Facts of the case are being extracted from the status report dated 15.02.2024 filed by concerned Dy SP which reads as follows:-

3) That the present case FIR No. 18 dated 27.12.2023 under section 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and under section 7, 8 prevention of corruption act, 1988 as amended by PC (Amendment) act 2018 has been registered against the petitioner and other accused persons as per the Enquiry conducted in respect of complaint no. 109/2023-Sangrur, moved by Gurtej Singh etc. Copy of FIR is already attached with the petition as Annexure P-l.

4) That during the course of enquiry, it was transpired that Gurtej Singh, Labh Singh and Darshan Singh were owners of the land measuring 149 Kanal 18 Marla situated at Village Balran B comprised in Khata No. 279/460-466 Salam Khewat No. 31 as per Jamabandi for the year 2013- 14. On 06.08.2018 Dharam Raj Patwari (Co-accused) entered mutation no. 10808 with regard to the transfer of land measuring 25 Kanal 15 Marla out of Khewat No. 279 in favour of Balwant Singh S/o Dalip Singh. However, Dharam Raj Patwari did not make any report in this regard in the Roznamcha whereas he was required to make the report in the Roznamcha and was also required to get signatures of the parties, who got effected the transfer of land. The mutation was also required to be signed by both the parties, but it bears signatures of Balwant Singh only whereas the signatures of Gurtej Singh and his brothers are not there on the mutation.

5) That during enquiry it was also transpired that Gurtej Singh did not transfer any land in favour of Balwant Singh or his family members nor said Balwant Singh has entered into any agreement with Gurtej Singh with regard to the transfer of land nor Balwant Singh has any land at Village Raisar Jakhal (Haryana). Infact, Balwant Singh is in possession of land measuring 22 Kanal 08 Marla situated at Village Balran since the year 1966, but he does not have any document qua his ownership over the said land. Balwant Singh approached Dharam Raj Patwari in order to get transferred the ownership of the land in his name and Raj Patwari demanded a No. 287 sum of Rs. 10 Lac as bribe from him, but the matter was settled for an amount of Rs. 7 Lac. On this, Balwant Singh withdrew Rs. 7 Lac from his bank account and handed over the same to Dharam Raj Patwari.

6) That during enquiry it was also transpired that with regard 6 to the transfer of land of complainant Gurtej Singh, Dharam Raj Patwari (co-accused) entered forged mutation no. 10808 on the basis of fake and fabricated exchange deed dated 14.05.20