Crl. Misc. No. M-24871 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: December 21, 2011 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-24871 of 2011 Malkiat Singh @ Kaddu …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-28651 of 2011 Dev Singh and another …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent 3. Crl. Misc. No. M-29559 of 2011 Harjinder Singh @ Shinda …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate with Crl. Misc. No. M-24871 of 2011 [2] Mr. H.S. Sangha, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Misc. Nos. M-24871 and M-29559 of 2011. Mr.Anurag Arora, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. M-28651 of 2011. Mr.P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of three petitions for grant of pre-arrest bail bearing Crl. Misc. Nos.M-24871, M-28651 and M-29559 of 2011. The FIR was registered at the instance of Chanan Singh, complainant, alleging that he was introduced by Manjit Singh and Harjinder Singh, property dealers to Satpal Singh as he wanted to purchase some property. Satpal Singh had allegedly entered into an agreement of sale on receipt of a sum of ` 50 lacs as earnest money from Mohinder Singh, the original owner of the land. Manjit Singh and Harjinder Singh, property dealers, had allegedly met Jarnail Singh son of the original owner Mohinder Singh who had conform that his father Mohinder Singh had entered into an agreement of sale with Satpal. The complainant alleged that as a matter of fact no agreement of sale had been entered into between Satpal and Mohinder Singh. Chanan Singh was persuaded on the basis of forged agreement of sale to agree to purchase the land of Mohinder Singh. In the said fraudulent deal, sum of ` 50 lacs was distributed amongst Manjit Singh, petitioner who is stated to be co-brother of Jarnail Singh. Rs.2 lacs had allegedly been Crl. Misc. No. M-24871 of 2011 [3] received by Malkiat Singh. A sum of Rs.2 lacs by Gurdev Singh, a sum of Rs.2 lacs by Kulwant Singh, and a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs by Harjinder Singh. Mr.T.S. Sangha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners Malkiat Singh and Harjinder Singh has submitted that the petitioners have been involved in the case on the basis of their alleged confessional statements before Deputy Superintendent of Police to the effect that they had also received money as mentioned above. The admissibility of said statement has been vehemently questioned. It has further been argued that Malkiat Singh being co-brother of Jarnail Singh when came to know about the fraud being played by Jarnail Singh, he cautioned purchaser Chanan Singh not to enter into the deal. Since Chanan Singh came to know about the fraud being played by him at the instance of petitioner Malkiat Singh, he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. It is claimed that he has not received any money as has been determined during the course of investigation on the basis of the alleged confessional statement before the police. So far as petitioner Harjinder Singh is concerned, he is a property dealer who had allegedly received a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs from the sum of Rs.50/- lacs which was allegedly paid by Chanan Singh to Satpal who claimed that there was an agreement of sale in his favour executed by the original owner Mohinder Singh. It has been claimed that both Malkiat Singh and Harjinder Singh have joined investigation and brought true facts to the notice of the investigating agency, they may be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Crl. Misc. No. M-24871 of 2011 [4] So far as petitioners Dev Singh and Kulwant Singh are concerned, their names are not mentioned in the FIR. As per the story of the prosecution, their names were disclosed by Jarnail Singh son of Mohinder Singh before the inquiry officer. The part attributed by Jarnail Singh to the said two persons is that these two persons i.e. Dev Singh and Kulwant Singh had taken Jarnail Singh on April 8, 2011 in the Tehsil premises, made him wait in front of the Tehsil premises and handed over a sum of Rs.8.60 lacs to Jarnail Singh telling him that the property of father of Jarnail Singh had shown to the concerned persons to enable them to get a bank loan for purchase of vehicle. Statement of Manjit Singh during the course of inquiry has also been recorded. Said Manjit Singh, a property dealer has named the petitioners to be property dealers. He has stated in his statement to the police that both the petitioners i.e. Dev Singh and Kulwant Singh had contacted Manjit Singh and asked him to introduce a person who would enter into a dubious deal of agreement of sale. They had allegedly received money which had been extracted from Chanan Singh, complainant, in a fraudulent manner. Counsel for petitioners-Dev Singh and Kulwant Singh has argued that the petitioners have been involved on the basis of the statement of co-accused that too made before the police as such they can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the police file. A perusal of the statements of Jarnail Singh, Surjit Singh, Crl. Misc. No. M-24871 of 2011 [5] Jarnail Singh son of Ballam Singh, Harjinder Singh and Dev Singh made before the inquiry officer voluntarily, cannot be said to have been obtained under coercion. The said statements have not been made while under arrest. It will be debatable whether this could be discarded at the initial stage of the investigation of the case. I have considered the contentions of Mr.Sangha regarding Manpreet Singh being the co-brother of Jarnail Singh. It is not apparent from the record that he had, at any stage, made any attempt to caution the purchaser Chanan Singh not to enter into the deal, as argued. A perusal of the file shows that Harjinder Singh, Dev Singh and Kulwant Singh had taken Jarnail Singh in Tehsil premises and after getting some paper formalities, handed a sum of ` 8.60 lacs to Jarnail Singh. All the petitioners seem to have obtained one or other financial benefit to dupe the complainant. The complainant had been persuaded to part with money for purchase of property belonging to Mohinder Singh by his son Jarnail Singh and other property dealers. In view of the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioners and the investigation being at initial stage, no ground is made out to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to seek the concession of regular bail. December 21, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE