CRM No.M-29099 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-29099 of 2010 Date of Decision:01.11.2010 Veena Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.R.S.Tacoria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioner-Veena Singh wife of S.P.Singh, has instituted the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against her along with her other co-accused, namely, Laxmi Devi daughter of Baljit Singh, wife of Vivek Kumar, Baljit Singh son of Mam Chand, S.P.Singh and D.P.Singh, sons of L.B.Singh and Karan Singh, Advocate etc., vide FIR No.355 dated 01.07.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station City, Gurgaon. 2. The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in this petition, is that Vivek Kumar son of complainant-Rajender Parsad had purchased a flat bearing No.1005 in Vem Valley Estate Rozewood City, Gurgaon, on 04.11.2005, after taking loan from ICICI home finance Bank. He was working and residing in London and never came to India since January, 2008. Laxmi wife of Vivek Kumar lodged an FIR No.930 dated 10.02.2008 against her husband and his relatives, for CRM No.M-29099 of 2010 2 the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. She has also filed another criminal and civil cases against them. 3. The complainant claimed that all the accused conspired together, prepared the forged documents and sold the flat by producing the fictitious person by impersonation on 08.04.2010, vide registered sale-deed No.557 in the name of petitioner-Veena Singh and her husband S.P.Singh. Vivek Kumar, owner of the flat, was stated to have never appeared before the registering authority or got the aforesaid sale-deed executed, nor received any payment. In fact, Vivek Kumar did not execute any power of attorney in this respect. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in all according to the prosecution, all the accused committed a criminal conspiracy, cheated him, fraudulently prepared the fake documents and illegally sold the flat without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant-Rajender Parshad, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner indicated here-in-above. 5. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 7. Ex facie, the main argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant, therefore, she is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 8. As is evident from the record that very serious and glaring allegations of cheating, fraud and preparing the false/fabricated documents are alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner and her husband are the main accused, who got the false power of attorney executed. It is evident from the order (Annexure P-3) of the Additional Sessions Judge that an amount of Rs.28 lacs has CRM No.M-29099 of 2010 3 also been transferred from the account of Vivek Kumar, owner of the flat, to the account of S.P.Singh, particularly when Vivek Kumar son of Rajender Parsad- complainant was residing abroad(London), for the last more than two years. Therefore, the questions of executing a power of attorney or receiving the amount by him, do not arise at all. The entire transaction has been fabricated only to cause wrongful loss to Vivek Kumar, the original owner of the flat. The mere fact that Laxmi Devi and Baljit Singh, co-accused of the petitioner, have already been allowed bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, is not a ground to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. Because, the Court has recorded the valid reasons in the impugned order(Annexure P-3) that at that time, statement of Vivek Kumar, owner of the flat, was not available and now the investigating agency has recorded his statement directly involving the present petitioner, in the commission of heinous offence. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail in this respect. 9. The matter did not rest there. While issuing notice of motion and staying the arrest, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation by this Court by virtue of order dated 05.10.2010. Learned State Counsel, on instructions from ASI Ajit Kumar, has submitted that the petitioner did not join the investigation and her custodial interrogation is required in this case. Under these circumstances, to me, since the recovery of documents is yet to be effected, so the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in order to unearth the scam of cheating and to elicit the truth in this context. 10. The anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depend on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent the normal procedure of arrest and investigation CRM No.M-29099 of 2010 4 of the police. The Court has also to see the investigation in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. 11. So, taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the accusation and the totality of the facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this regard. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. Needless to mention that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. November 01, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE