Crl. Misc. No. M-478 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-478 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : January 20, 2011 Kulwant Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 380, 420, 467, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Rajpura City, District Patiala, vide FIR No.245 dated 6th November, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case merely because she has preferred a suit for permanent injunction against the complainant and co-accused Subhash Chand and Surinder Kumar in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Rajpura. As efforts to dispossess her from the house had failed, she was implicated in the instant case. He further referred to the order dated 12th November, 2009, passed by the civil court regarding the property in question. Learned counsel further contended that in the inquiry conducted pursuant to the complaint, only allegation against the petitioner is that she has forged the ration card by Crl. Misc. No. M-478 of 2011 2 giving a wrong address. According to counsel, even this allegation was later found to be false. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. FIR was lodged on the complaint of one Jaswinder Singh. He alleged that accused Surinder had approached him for selling a house, which Jaswinder Singh had earlier purchased from Seema Sharma wife of Surinder Kumar for a higher sale consideration of Rs.10,50,000/- to his brother Subhash Chand. Accordingly, an agreement to sell dated 17th November, 2008 was executed between Subhash Chander and the complainant and earnest money of Rs.2,50,000/- received. Sale deed was to be executed on 9th September, 2009 on payment of the remaining amount of Rs.8.00 lacs. Accused Surinder Kumar and Subhash Chander in connivance with Devender Singh as stamp vender at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 17.11.2008, had obtained his additional signatures on the back side of the agreement to sell dated 17.11.2008 and remaining amount of Rs.8.00 lacs was received by the complainant and possession of the house was handed over to Subhash Chander. Thereafter, Surinder Kumar and Subhash Chand in connivance with Kulwant Kaur (petitioner herein) broke open the locks put on the house in the absence of complainant and stole number of articles lying therein. Thus, they took illegal possession of the house. Later, when the complainant went Crl. Misc. No. M-478 of 2011 3 to the house in question, he was threatened by the ladies residing there. The complainant alleged that he had spent his entire earning in purchasing the said house but had been dispossessed of the same by the accused in an illegal manner. In view of nature of allegations levelled in the FIR, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre- arrest bail. It appears that petitioner preferred a pre-arrest bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The same was, however, dismissed on 20th December, 2010 (Annexure P-7) as petitioner did not join investigation. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain civil litigation regarding the house in question as well as inquiries conducted in the matter. I am, however, of the view that these aspects are not relevant at this stage as the petitioner has failed to cooperate with the investigating agency. This is despite the fact that she was granted the concession of ad-interim pre-arrest bail by the court of Sessions vide order, Annexure P-6. After having been granted the protective order, the petitioner failed to join the investigation. The apex court in judgment reported as State rep. by CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, observed as under:- “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation- oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in Crl. Misc. No. M-478 of 2011 4 such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” In view of the fact that the petitioner has consistently failed to cooperate with the investigating agency, no case for grant of pre- arrest bail is made out. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 20, 2011 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No