Crl. Misc. No. M-14808 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-14808 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: January 13, 2010 Balwinder Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. RVS Chugh, Advocate, for the complainant. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two petitions namely Crl. Misc. No. M-14808 of 2009 titled Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Crl. Misc. No. M-16263 of 2009 titled Pavitar Singh Vs. State of Punjab. In both the petitions, the petitioners pray for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 22 dated 14.04.2009 under Sections 419/420/468/471/120-B IPC, P.S. Budhlada, District Mansa. Learned counsel for the petitioners has given the sequence of facts. The sequence of facts is admitted by learned counsel for the respondent-State as also the complainant. Mohinder Singh was the registered owner of a piece of land. A sale deed was executed on 12.06.2006. Mohinder Singh died on 01.07.2006. The sale deed was registered on 11.07.2006. On 11.07.2006, at the time of registration of sale Crl. Misc. No. M-14808 of 2009 2 deed, instead of Mohinder Singh, some other person namely Karnail Singh (not one of the petitioners) was produced so as to impersonate Mohinder Singh. The land was sold to Parvinder Singh and five others who have been treated as bona fide purchasers by the investigating agency. Sons of Mohinder Singh filed a complaint on 12.11.2008 for the offence that was committed on 11.07.2006. An inquiry was conducted before registration of the FIR and is a part of the FIR. From the inquiry report, it transpires that in fact de facto owner of the land was Pavitar Singh s/o Kartar Singh petitioner and so as to save the land from becoming surplus, the same was transferred in the name of Mohinder Singh. Under the circumstances, Pavitar Singh was to receive the sale consideration. It further transpires that Baljinder Singh etc., the complainants have challenged the sale deed in Civil Court. Decision of Civil Court shall obviously have precedence in regard to the transfer of title or otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that so far as Balwinder Singh's role is concerned, he has identified although a wrong person, as Mohinder Singh at the time of registration of sale deed. Learned counsel contends that admittedly sale deed was executed by Mohinder Singh and, therefore, the matter needs to be viewed in that perspective. It has further been stated that Balwinder Singh has joined investigation and no recovery is to be effected. In regard to Pavitar Singh, it has been stated that he was the owner of the land and would be bound by the verdict given by the Civil Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from Crl. Misc. No. M-14808 of 2009 3 ASI Satpal, states that indeed the petitioners have joined investigation and are not required for further investigation. I have considered the issue. As per the case of the respondents, the petitioners have joined investigation and no recovery is to be effected from them. The offence itself was committed on 11.07.2006, complaint whereof was made on 12.11.2008. FIR was lodged on 14.04.2009. The complainants are sons of Mohinder Singh and would obviously be aware of transfer of title. It, however, seems that because Pavitar Singh was throughout the person in possession of land, complaint was not made earlier by the sons of Mohinder Singh. Considering the delay in making a report to the police and the fact that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioners, both the petitions are allowed subject to the following conditions:- i)the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required; ii)the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and iii)the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. This order shall enure till 15 days after the filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., during which period the petitioner shall be required to seek regular bail. 13.01.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE