Crl. Misc. No. M- 31789 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 31789 of 2009 O&M) Date of decision: February 22, 2010 Joginder Parshad ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate, for the petitioner. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. Petitioner, Joginder Parshad son of Guni Ram, has filed this petition under Section 439 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Parduman Singh and Bhupinder Singh, respondents No. 2 and 3, respectively, vide order dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, in FIR No. 76 dated 24.8.2009 registered at Police Station Nurpur Bedi, under Section 420 IPC. According to the petitioner, the fraud committed by respondents No.2 and 3 with him is apparent from the fact that other accused Baghel Singh and Natha Singh, who are owners of the land and had agreed to sell the land in his favour, had, in fact, entered into an agreement to sell that land to one Mohan Singh on 23.1.2009 and took earnest money of Rs. 1 lakh and before the expiry of the date mentioned in the agreement for execution of the sale deed, they executed sale deed in his favour, without disclosing him the factum of the previous agreement. The anticipatory bail was granted to them by learned Additional Sessions Judge, without even going through the allegations against them. They were aware of the fact Crl. Misc. No. M- 31789 of 2009 2 that the land in dispute was in the river bed and with an intention to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to him in connivance with the land owners had shown some other land to him where an electric tubewell was installed. Natha Singh, one of the owners, also tendered an affidavit regarding the electric tubewell and deposed therein that the same has been given to the petitioner alongwith the land in dispute, whereas there was no such electric tubewell in the land, which was sold in his favour. The FIR was got lodged by the petitioner against Natha Singh and Baghel Singh. But he nowhere narrated in his statement, on the basis of which that FIR was recorded, that the landowner had agreed to sell the electric tubewell also, which they represented to be existing in the land so sold in his favour. The main allegation made in the FIR is that all the accused cheated the petitioner by executing sale deed regarding the land in the river bed after showing cultivable land to him. A perusal of order dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure P/2), shows that respondents No.2 and 3 moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail in which interim anticipatory bail was granted and they were directed to join the investigation. Accordingly, they joined the investigation and thereafter order granting interim anticipatory bail was made absolute. It is not the case of the petitioner that some of the conditions of the order, vide which anticipatory bail was granted, have been violated by respondents No.2 and 3. His contention is about non taking into consideration the facts by the Additional Sessions Judge before granting the bail itself. In the absence of the order, vide which these respondents No. 2 and 3 were granted interim anticipatory bail, it is not possible for this Court to determine if those facts were taken into consideration by Additional Crl. Misc. No. M- 31789 of 2009 3 Sessions Judge or not. The case is based upon the documents and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that custodial interrogation of the respondents is necessary for extracting information relating to the case. It is well settled law that if the case is based on the documents already in possession of the investigating agency, it cannot be said that custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary. The petitioner has also pleaded in his petition that concession of anticipatory bail is being mis-used by respondents No.2 and 3 as they are constantly threatening him with dire consequences and pressurizing him to withdraw the FIR. He also referred to one written representation dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure P/7), which, according to him, was made to the SHO, regarding one of the incidents when he was waylaid by respondents No. 2 and 3 in the court premises itself. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner knew the name of respondents No. 2 and 3 and in that representation/application it is not his case that those respondents were not known to him. He had come out with the specific averments against them in the FIR. In the application he narrated that on 23.9.2009 he was present in the Court in connection with the hearing of the bail application when Natha Singh and Baghel Singh, alongwith 2-3 unknown persons, started abusing and scuffling with him. That itself falsifies his contention that respondents No.2 and 3 are extending threats after grant of anticipatory bail to them. The petition has been moved on false averments. There is no ground for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3. The petition is dismissed accordingly. February 22, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M- 31789 of 2009 4