CRM-M-31766-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] CRM-M-31835-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-32246-2011 CRM-M-32341-2011 CRM-M-34857-2011 (O&M) :::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-31766-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:23.12.2011 Avtar Singh Ghai and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (2) CRM-M-31835-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:23.12.2011 Bua Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (3) CRM-M-32246-2011 Date of decision:23.12.2011 Parmjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent (4) CRM-M-32341-2011 Date of decision:23.12.2011 Dr. Kulwant Singh Johal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent (5) CRM-M-34857-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:23.12.2011 Satwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners in CRM-M-31766-2011. CRM-M-31766-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] CRM-M-31835-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-32246-2011 CRM-M-32341-2011 CRM-M-34857-2011 (O&M) :::::::: Mr. J.S.Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-32246 & 32341-2011. Mr. Gurmohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-31835-2011. Mr. R.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-34857-2011. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This order shall dispose of five bail applications bearing CRM-M-31766-2011 titled as `Avtar Singh Ghai and another Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “1st petition”], CRM-M-31835-2011 titled as `Bua Singh Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “2nd petition”], CRM-M-32246-2011 titled as `Parmjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab' [for short “3rd petition”], CRM-M-32341-2011 titled as `Dr. Kulwant Singh Johal Vs. The State of Punjab' [for short “4th petition”] and CRM-M-34857-2011 titled as `Satwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “5th petition”] in which all the petitioner(s) have prayed for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.95 dated 27.09.2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana. The FIR is registered by Sham Lal in which he has alleged that Bua Singh offered him a deal to purchase plot measuring 503 square yards, situated near village Mundian Kalan, District Ludhiana and took him to the house of the alleged vendor Sohan Singh. Satwinder Singh had told him that Sohan Singh is his uncle (Chacha), whereas Dr. Kulwant Singh Johal and Parmjit Singh identified the said Sohan Singh. The complainant was made to believe from the revenue record that the land in question was in the name of Sohan Singh and was also shown the Voter Identity Card of Sohan Singh bearing the address of village Mundian Kalan. The deal was struck for a sum of `1,05,42,000/- against which he had paid `50,000/- as advance then and there and it was decided that the sale deed shall be executed in the name of his son CRM-M-31766-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] CRM-M-31835-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-32246-2011 CRM-M-32341-2011 CRM-M-34857-2011 (O&M) :::::::: and wife. Thereafter, the complainant made the payment of `10,00,000/- to Sohan Singh at his house in the presence of the other accused. The agreement was typed but the accused had suggested him that he should get the sale deed registered at a lesser amount to save the stamp duty. Hence, the sale deed was got registered on the stamp papers for the value of `32,20,000/- which was paid through cheques from different accounts which were encashed by the accused. After the registration of the sale deed, the complainant is alleged to have taken possession of the plot and collected building material for the purpose of construction and boundary wall. At that time, one person, namely, Mohan Singh, contacted him and told that the said plot belongs to him to which he had objected on the ground that he had purchased the plot after having been satisfied with the revenue record. Thus, the complainant alleged that the said Mohan Singh is also in connivance with the other accused. Petitioners Avtar Singh Ghai, Harminder Singh Ghai, Bua Singh, Parmjit Singh, Dr. Kulwant Singh Johal, Satwinder Singh and accused Mohan Singh had filed their separate anticipatory bail applications before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana which were taken up together and vide its order dated 12.10.2011, only Mohan Singh was granted anticipatory bail on the ground that he is the owner of the property in dispute and had made a complaint to the police and also filed a Civil Suit challenging the sale deed. However, the anticipatory bail applications of the other accused were dismissed on 12.10.2011. The petitioners in all the aforesaid cases have, thus, approached this Court for pre-arrest bail by way of their respective petitions in which notice of motion was issued and interim bail was granted. Shri Bhoop Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the 1st petition, has argued that the petitioners are neither named in the FIR nor had played any role either in the execution of the agreement to sell dated 02.03.2011 or in the sale deed dated 05.09.2011 by which the complainant had purchased the property in dispute from the alleged vendor Sohan Singh. CRM-M-31766-2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] CRM-M-31835-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-32246-2011 CRM-M-32341-2011 CRM-M-34857-2011 (O&M) :::::::: In the 1st petition, the complainant has filed an application bearing CRM-68389-2011 in order to place on record Annexures R-1 to R-6 and CRM-68388-2011 for seeking exemption from filing its certified copies. The said applications are hereby allowed. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that although the petitioners in the 1st petition are not involved either in the agreement to sell (Annexure R-1) or in the sale deed (Annexure R-4) and are also not named in the FIR, but they are witnesses to the agreement to sell dated 09.03.2011 which was entered into between Mohan Singh (actual owner) and Sohan Singh (purchaser). There is no dispute that the agreement dated 09.03.2011 (Annexure R-3) is entered into by Mohan Singh (actual owner) but the allegation is that Sohan Singh is not the genuine person as he was being personated by one Rachhpal Singh and since the petitioners in the 1st petition knew about the identity of Sohan Singh, therefore, they are also involved in the present case. In this regard, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners in the 1st petition that there is no complaint or FIR by Mohan Singh with regard to the said agreement (Annexure R-3) and the present FIR has been registered by the complainant who was not even a party to the said agreement (Annexure R-3). Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the petitioners in the 1st petition have joined the investigation, the interim order dated 01.11.2011 passed by this Court is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the 2nd petition has submitted that he is not the beneficiary in the alleged transaction as he was only the witness to the agreement to sell (Annexure R-1). Similar argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in the 3rd petition as Parmjit Singh (petitioner therein) was also the witness to the agreement to sell (Annexure R-1). In this regard, learned State Counsel assisted by leaned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that both Bua Singh and Parmjit Singh are the property dealers who had taken 1% commission. CRM-M-31766-2011 (O&M) [ 5 ] CRM-M-31835-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-32246-2011 CRM-M-32341-2011 CRM-M-34857-2011 (O&M) :::::::: Bua Singh is the person who had introduced the complainant Sham Lal to the alleged vendor Sohan Singh who was actually Rachhpal Singh who is in custody. He had taken him to his house where Parmjit Singh had identified him as such. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that both the petitioners in the 2nd and 3rd petitions do not deserve the concession of bail and hence the 2nd and 3rd petitions (CRM- M-31835 & 32246-2011) are hereby dismissed and the interim orders dated 01.11.2011 passed by this Court in both the petitions are hereby vacated. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the 4th petition has submitted that the petitioner is neither a witness to the agreement to sell (Annexure R-1) nor to the sale deed (Annexure R-4). Similar argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in the 5th petition, but learned State Counsel has submitted that as per CCTV footage of the bank, petitioner in the 4th petition has played active part in the payment of `32,20,000/- which was allegedly paid by the complainant as sale consideration to the fictitious person (Sohan Singh) whose fictitious bank account was opened and the money was withdrawn and the petitioner in the 5th petition had also identified the fictitious person Sohan Singh as his uncle (Chacha). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that both the petitioners in the 4th and 5th petitions also do not deserve the concession of bail and hence the 4th and 5th petitions (CRM-M-32341 & 34857-2011) are hereby dismissed and the interim order dated 01.11.2011 passed by this Court in the 4th petition and the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by this Court in the 5th petition are hereby vacated. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. December 23 , 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge