CRM No. M-31644 of 2008 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM No. M-31644 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 06.02.2009 **** Bhudev Singh s/o Arjun Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Haryana . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Mamta Singal Talwar, AAG, Haryana Ms.Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the complainant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C’) in a case registered vide FIR No.111 dated 9.4.2008 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/323/506 IPC at Police Station, Sector 55, Faridabad. The FIR has been registered on the application of Devender Singh son of Piara Singh, resident of House No.F-1129, C.R. Park, Delhi, in which he stated that his mother Baljeet Kaur wife of Sh. Piara Singh had purchased two parcels of land situated CRM No. M-31644 of 2008 - 2 - in the area of village Sirohi Tehsil and district Faridabad one measuring 4 Kanals 19 marlas vide sale deed No.14539 dated 20.1.1998 and another measuring 7 Kanals 7 Marlas vide sale deed No.14540 dated 20.1.1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘land in question’). Thereafter, Smt. Baljeet Kaur, mother of Devender Singh along with her entire family migrated to London in the year 1999. Devender Singh returned from London to India on 27.1.2008 whereas, rest of his family members stayed back in London. When Devender Singh went to visit land in question, he was stopped by a Chowkidar who claimed that the land in question (farm house) belongs to Bhudev (petitioner) son of Sh. Arjan Singh. Thereafter, Devender Singh visited Halqa Patwari who told him that land in question has been sold to Bhudev (petitioner) vide sale deed No.7435 dated 17.7.2007 and the mutation in this regard, has also been sanctioned. Thereafter, Bhudev sold the land in question to Anil Kumar. After obtaining certified copy of sale deed No.7435 dated 17.7.2007, it was found by Devender Singh that Budev (petitioner) got the sale deed executed in his favour by impersonating by someone as his mother. It was alleged in the FIR that photograph appended on the sale deed is not of his mother and is of some other lady. It is also alleged by Devender Singh that his mother only knew Punjabi language whereas sale deed was bearing signatures in Hindi. Bhudev (petitioner) further sold the property to one Anil Kumar son of Gian Chand resident of village Barpur, New Delhi vide sale deed No.21595 dated 2.1.2008 who has also got the mutation bearing No.103 sanctioned in his favour. It is further alleged that when Devender Singh went to his farm house and met Anil Kumar, 3-4 more persons were sitting there. He asked that CRM No. M-31644 of 2008 - 3 - when his mother was not even present in India in the year 2007 then how the sale deed was executed. Thereupon, Anil Kumar got agitated and threatened Devender Singh of dire consequences if he ask about the land again and told him to forget about the land otherwise, he would be done to death and then threw him out of the farm house. Faced with the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide Bail Application No.198 dated 20.5.2008. This bail application was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 3.6.2008 observing as follow: “As per allegations in the First Information Report, Smt. Baljeet Kaur was away to London and in her absence the applicant managed to get the registered sale deed executed in his favour by getting her impersonated. From the sale deed dated 17.7.2007 executed in his favour, it is apparent that no amount of sale consideration had been paid in the presence of Sub Registrar and as per recital in the document, the entire sale price was stated to have been already received by the vendor. Similar are the contents of sale deed dated 2.1.2008 executed by the applicant in favour of Anil Kumar, although, the sale consideration amount was mentioned as Rs.11,53,500/-.” The petitioner had filed Crl. Misc.No.M 15199 of 2008 before this Court, however, the said bail application was got dismissed as withdrawn on 10.7.2008. The petitioner has now filed the present bail application again on 1.12.2008 against the order of the Additional Sessions CRM No. M-31644 of 2008 - 4 - Judge, Faridabad dated 3.6.2008. The bail application was listed before this Court on 3.12.2008, in which notice of motion was issued to A.G. Haryana for 14.1.2009. On 14.1.2009, this Court has passed the following order: “In this case, FIR was registered on 9.4.2008 under Section 420/467/468/471/120-B/323/506 IPC at Police Station, Sector 55, Faridabad, Distt. Faridabad. The petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail on 20.5.2008 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which was dismissed on 3.6.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court for bail through Crl.Mis.No.M 15199 of 2008, which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 10.7.2008. The petitioner has then filed the present bail application on 1.12.2008, in which notice of motion was issued for today. The State counsel has been asked as to what efforts have been made by the Investigating Officer to arrest the petitioner since there was no interim protection granted by the Court to the petitioner. The learned counsel referred to some zimini orders of September and October, 2008 only. He could not satisfy the Court about any efforts having been made in the month of November and December, 2008. Thus, in these circumstances, counsel for the respondent is directed to file an affidavit of the Investigating Officer i.e. Mr.Hari Singh, A.S.I, P.S., Sector 55, Faridabad, who is present in the Court, giving a detail of all the zimni orders recorded and efforts made and explain as to why the Investigating Officer could not arrest the petitioner in spite of the fact that there was no interim protection granted to him by the Court. CRM No. M-31644 of 2008 - 5 - Adjourned to 22.01.2009. Copy of this order be given to the counsel for the State under the signatures of Reader of the Court for compliance.” In pursuance to order dated 14.1.2009, ASI Hari Singh, Police Station, Section 55, Faridabad, who is the Investigating Officer filed his affidavit dated 21.1.2009 but he did not place on record zimni orders as directed by this Court. Today, ASI Hari Singh has filed another affidavit dated 5.2.2009 and zimni orders as directed by this Court starting from 2.5.2008 to 4.2.2009 which are taken on record. Mr.Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is not involved in this alleged fraud and he himself is a purchaser and not the seller. Therefore, he deserves concession of anticipatory bail. As against this, learned counsel for the State has vehemently contended that the petitioner is one of the link in the entire chain of conspiracy/fraud, whereby the complainant Devender Singh or his mother Smt. Baljeet Kaur have been duped of their valuable immovable property situated at Faridabad. In this regard, it is contended by learned counsel for the State that the very fact that no sale price has been paid before the Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed shows that it is a fake transaction and the arrest of the petitioner is necessary. At this stage, it appears to be a case of fraud in which number of persons are involved. CRM No. M-31644 of 2008 - 6 - After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, the bail application is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) February 6, 2009 JUDGE vivek