Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
Mehant Sudershan Dass – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 56280 of 2023
Decided On : 09-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

The court emphasized that anticipatory bail must balance individual rights against the seriousness of allegations, particularly in cases involving forgery and fraud in land transactions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Allegations of forgery and fraud in property transactions - The petitioner executed a sale deed despite having no authority under the Will, leading to accusations of fraud and embezzlement. (Paras 1, 6, 7)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Considerations - The court must balance individual rights against public interest, considering the gravity of the offence and the potential for custodial interrogation. (Paras 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of executing a fraudulent sale deed for land attached to a Dera, despite knowing he had no authority to sell it, resulting in a complaint filed after 13 years.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the case did not warrant anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of the allegations and the potential for tampering with evidence.

Issues: The main issues included the authority of the petitioner to sell the land and the motivations behind the FIR.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to consider the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on public interest when deciding on anticipatory bail applications.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

Prayer in the petition is under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.144 dated 16.07.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC registered at Police Station Gate Hakima, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.

2. As per the contents of the FIR, it has been alleged as under:

"Sir, it is humbly submitted that I, Sanjeev Kumar S/o Late Shri. Bua Dutta, am R/o House No.1458-S/13 Chowk Chintpurni, Amritsar. That as per the record of the WILL certified on 21.05.2002 vide document No.227, Bahi No.3, Jild No.1488, page No.9698, signed by Sub-Registrar, Amritsar, of Mahant Sudarshan Dass, follower Mahant Mohandass cannot sell the property of the Dera, copy of which is enclosed herewith. But the above accused, Mahant Sudarshan Chela Mohandas, R/o Gali Jagatram, Namak Mandi, Amritsar, 2. Advocate Kuldeep Bawa, District Courts, Amritsar, 3. S. Kulwant Singh s/o S. Narain Singh, 4. Jatinder Kaur w/o S. Kulwant Singh, 5. Jaswinder Singh s/o S. Kulwant Singh s/o S. Kulwant Singh, 6. Harpreet Kaur w/o S. Jaswinder Singh, 7. Naveen Kumar S/o Chiman Lal, R/o Gali Gujran wali, 8. Premnath Passi s/o Ram Tirath Passi, Gali Sudh Singh, Thanedar, Moti Bazar, Amritsar in connivance with each other have executed the sale-deed of land pertaining to crores of rupees whereas the above land cannot be sold but the above accused got the sale-deeds executed by preparing fake documents and these sale-deeds have been executed by misleading the Revenue Department. This sale-deed has been executed on 14.10.2011 vide document No.7149, Jayad Bahi No.1, Jild No.11257 and committed fraud of crores of rupees. I came to know about this fake WILL on 06.01.2020, on which I applied for certified copy. On receipt of certified copy, I informed to the worthy A.C.P. S. Sukhjinder Singh, on which the worthy A.C.P. conducted its enquiry. But still no action has been taken against the accused persons. Mahant Sudarshandas also committed fraud with me which fraud has been established in your report dated 20.03.2020 (ACP1230, 19-3-18). The above accused persons, on the basis of above fake sale-deed are trying to sell the land to other persons. Kindly take legal action against these accused persons so that no other person can become victim of their fraud."

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner while praying for pre-arrest bail submits that whole of the case is based upon documentary evidence and thus the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be required. He further submits that the petitioner came into possession of the land in question on the basis of Will which has been placed on record as Annexure P-I dated 31.05.2022 executed by Mahant Mohan Das Beragi and as per the covenant contained therein, the petitioner has no right to sell the land and thus there was no reason for the petitioner to execute the sale deed. The sale deed was executed owing to ignorance and the petitioner being illiterate. In fact, the land was leased out and the money received by the petitioner is a leased money.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that FIR in question is an act of vengeance as the complainant has repeatedly tried to dislodge the petitioner in civil litigation having failed thereto. The present FIR has been registered after 13 years.

5. Per contra, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant submits that the illegality of the act and the offence committed by the petitioner is evident from the fact that the petitioner very well knew that as per the Will, he had no authority to sell the land yet he had executed the sale deed and pocketed huge amount of money of Rs. 33 lakhs. It is a case where in a property attached to Dera for the welfare of Dera and public at large has been usurped and embezzled by the petitioner for his personal use.

6. Having heard rival contentions and after going through records of the case, this Cour