Crl. Misc. Nos.M-16027, 16028 & 16279 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Crl. Misc. No.M-16027 of 2009 Date of decision:07.07.2009. Charanjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (2) Crl. Misc. No.M-16028 of 2009 Date of decision:07.07.2009. Jarnail Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (3) Crl. Misc. No.M-16279 of 2009 Date of decision:07.07.2009. Harkewal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioners, in Crl. Misc. Nos.16027 & 16028 of 2009. Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner, in Crl. Misc. No.16279 of 2009. Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G, Punjab, for the respondent – State. Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** Crl. Misc. Nos.M-16027, 16028 & 16279 of 2009 -2- AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). By this order I proposed to dispose of three petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No.16027 of 2009 filed by Charanjit Singh, Criminal Misc. No.16028 of 2009 filed by Jarnail Singh and Criminal Misc. No.16279 of 2009 filed by Harkewal Singh, for grant of anticipatory bail moved under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners herein have stated that they have not been named in the FIR registered and, therefore, have no rule to play in the fraud which is alleged to have been committed by the accused in execution of the forged agreement to sell with the complainant. It has further been contended by the counsel for the petitioners that in view of the order passed by this Court granting them ad interim protection, the petitioners have appeared before the Investigating Officer and have joined the investigation. On the other hand, counsel for the State accepts the factual position that the petitioners have joined the investigation but contends that an amount of Rs.30 lacs, which was handed over at the time of the execution of the forged agreement to sell, is still to be recovered from the petitioners and the petitioners to that extent have not cooperated in the investigation. He submits that it is a case of total impersonation on the part of the accused. Two of the accused namely Manjit Kaur, who had impersonated as the owner of land by posing herself to be Gurmit Kaur, and Mandeep Singh, who had impersonated himself as Maha Singh son of Gurmit Kaur (owner of the land) have been arrested. One Lakhvinder Singh impersonated himself as Devender Singh, the property dealer. Harkewal Singh Crl. Misc. Nos.M-16027, 16028 & 16279 of 2009 -3- (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-16279 of 2009) impersonated himself as Kewal Singh (brother of Gurmit Kaur) and Charanjit Singh and Jarnail Singh (petitioners in Criminal Misc. Nos.16027 & 16028 of 2009 respectively) prepared the fake ration card, photocopy of which was given to the complainant at the time when the agreement to sell was signed which contains the photograph of Manjit Kaur showing her to be Gurmit Kaur (owner of the land). This completes the whole sequence of events and when seen in the context of the FIR, which has been registered by putting these people at the place of persons whom they have impersonated, it is a clear case of fraud committed upon the complainant wherein Rs.30 lac have been taken from the complainant on the basis of the forged agreement to sell, which was entered into by the parties. On this basis and in the light of the fact that the amount which the petitioners had received from the complainant has not been recovered from them, counsel for the State prays that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed and the petitioners therein are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. He adds herein that as per the statement of Manjit Kaur in the presence of the Gram Panchayat, it has come on record that Charanjit Singh and Jarnail Singh had only given Rs.40,000/- to Manjit Kaur and had retained most of the amount with them. He has further stated that Harkewal Singh is a ration depot holder who had supplied the ration card which was used in the commission of the crime. He also received money which has also not been recovered from him. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Crl. Misc. Nos.M-16027, 16028 & 16279 of 2009 -4- From the facts, as has been narrated in the FIR, and the roles which have been attributed to the petitioners therein where they have impersonated as different persons, the position becomes very clear that how fraud has been played on the complainant by the accused – petitioners in a well planned and systematic manner. A telephonic call is received from Lakhwinder Singh, who impersonates himself as Devender Singh (property dealer). The complainant since is interested in the purchase of the good land in District Sangrur, is shown land on 21/22.03.2008 which is not to the choice of the complainant. The property dealer thereafter calls the complainant on 02.04.2009 at 4.00 p.m. at a tea shop of Khanna where the property dealer alongwith two persons namely Harkewal Singh (petitioner), who poses himself as Kewal Singh and the maternal uncle of Maha Singh and Mandeep Singh, who poses himself to be Maha Singh (son of owner of the property), contend that the land is available for sale and a settlement is reached that the land would be sold at the rate of Rs.13,05,000/- per acre and Rs.10,000/- is received as earnest money. On 04.04.2009, the property dealer alongwith Harkewal Singh and Manjit Kaur came alongwith a copy of the ration card No.76, Book No.21720 of 08.11.2007 wherein photograph of Manjit Kaur was affixed showing her to be Gurmit Kaur (owner of the land). Believing the said ration card to be a genuine document, an agreement to sell was executed at the shop of Ashwani Kumar, Deed Writer, which was witnessed by witnesses and Rs.29,90,000/- was paid as earnest money and Rs.25,000/- as commission was paid to the property dealer. Thereafter, the sale deed was not got executed despite various efforts on the part of the complainant to contact the Crl. Misc. Nos.M-16027, 16028 & 16279 of 2009 -5- petitioners and the property dealer on the mobile phone which was given to him, which created a doubt in the mind of the complainant and he went to Mohali where the original owner of the land was said to be residing. On inquiry, he came to know that the original owner of the land was a different person and the agreement to sell which had been got executed was forged by impersonation by the accused. Accordingly, he proceeded to get the FIR registered. As is apparent from above, a well planned fraud was committed on the complainant which was executed to perfection where the accused did not disclose their original names but used fictitious names to defraud the complainant. Charanjit Singh and Jarnail Singh (petitioners in Criminal Misc. Nos.16027 & 16028 of 2009 respectively) prepared ration card and received the money from the complainant at the time when the agreement to sell was executed. Out of the said amount, they had further given Rs.40,000/- to Manjit Kaur, who had impersonated as Gurmit Kaur (the original owner of the land). The main mastermind behind the whole thing appears to be a well organized and systematically executed scheme. Harkewal Singh (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.16279 of 2009) has impersonated himself as brother of the original land owner and has identified Mandeep Singh as Maha Singh S/o Gurmit Kaur, the original land owner. All these things go to show the nexus between all the accused where they had meticulously planned to execute a fraud. As has been stated by the counsel for the State that an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- is required to be recovered from the accused, I am also of the considered view that to go into the truth of the matter and to inquire into the case, proper investigation would be Crl. Misc. Nos.M-16027, 16028 & 16279 of 2009 -6- required for which custodial interrogation would be needed so that truth could be brought to light. In view of the above, I do not find merit in the present petitions and am of the considered view that the petitioners do not deserve concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, all the three petitions stand dismissed. July 07, 2009. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) vinod JUDGE