Crl. M. No. M- 29558 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 29558 of 2009 Date of decision. 18.02.2010 Charanjit Kaur wife of Karnail Singh s/o Pritam Singh, r/o Ram Garh, now Hargobind Nagar Gali No.9, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur. ....... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr.TPS Tung, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. H.S. Tiwana, Advocate for the complainant. Sham Sunder, J. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the petitioner, for the grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No. 168 dated 28.09.2009, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201, Crl. M. No. M- 29558 of 2009 2 204, 207 and 208 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Dirbha District Sangrur. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case carefully. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner purchased the property, in dispute, from Baldev Singh and Sukhwinder Singh. He has further submitted that Baldev Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, purchased the property from Gurdial Singh. He has further submitted that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell, in respect of 33 kanals and 3 marlas of land, in favour of the complainant and obtained a sum of Rs.13.00 lacs. He has further submitted that since the petitioner was the bonafide purchaser of the property, in dispute, she did not commit any fraud, with the complainant. He has further submitted that even the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, held the allotment of land in favour of Gurdial Singh as correct. He has further submitted that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated, in the instant case. 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent have submitted that the land measuring 33 kanals 3 marlas did not belong to Gurdial Singh, as the allotment, in his favour, had been cancelled, vide order dated 29.03.1989 by the Crl. M. No. M- 29558 of 2009 3 Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. They have further submitted that Gurdial Singh, in connivance with the revenue authorities did not get cancelled the mutation of allotment, in his favour. They have further submitted that Gurdial Singh was not the owner of the property, which vested in the Government. They have further submitted that once the allotment, in favour of Gurdial Singh, was cancelled, he being not the owner of the land, and, as such, he could not validly transfer the same, in favour of anybody. They have further submitted that the petitioner was not the owner of the property, in dispute, which vested in the Government , but still she entered into an agreement to sell, in favour of the complainant, and obtained a sum of Rs.13.00 lacs. They have further submitted that the petitioner, thus, played a fraud upon the complainant and, thus, cheated him. They have further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the accused is eminently required with a view to recover the amount and elicit information with regard to the mode and manner, in which the alleged offences were committed. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case, in which the anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner, Crl. M. No. M- 29558 of 2009 4 for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is evident from the order dated 29.03.1989, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, that the allotment, in respect of the land, which had been made, in favour of Gurdial Singh, was cancelled. So Gurdial Singh was no longer the owner thereof. If he obtained any order, in his favour regarding the allotment of the land, by concealing the factum of cancellation, that was of no consequence. The petitioner very well knew that the land, in dispute, vested in the Government, yet she represented herself as the owner thereof, entered into an agreement to sell, in respect thereof , in favour of the complainant and obtained a sum of Rs.13.00 lacs. Right from the very beginning the intention of the petitioner was to cheat the complainant, as the allotment, in favour of Gurdial Singh, the original allottee, had already been cancelled. The custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner, is eminently required, with a view to recover the amount of Rs.13.00 lacs; and to elicit further information from her, with regard to the mode and manner, in which the alleged offences were committed. The custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect, who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage Crl. M. No. M- 29558 of 2009 5 in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such an interrogation would elude, if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often, interrogation, in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The investigation is at the preliminary stage. The very investigation shall be hampered and impeded, if the accused is released on anticipatory bail. Even otherwise, anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, which can be invoked, in exceptional circumstances. This case does not present any exceptional circumstance, warranting the exercise of discretion, for the grant of anticipatory bail. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations, heinous nature of the offences, the attending circumstances, in which the offences were allegedly committed, by the accused-petitioner; and the factum that the possibility of tampering with the evidence, influencing the witnesses, and abscondance of the accused, in case, released on anticipatory bail, could not be ruled out, no ground, whatsoever, is made out, for accepting the petition. Accordingly, criminal miscellaneous deserves to be dismissed. Crl. M. No. M- 29558 of 2009 6 6. For the reasons recorded above, criminal miscellaneous No. M- 29558 of 2009, is dismissed. The order dated 22.10.2009, is vacated. Any observation made, in this order, shall not be taken as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. February 18, 2010 ( SHAM SUNDER ) dinesh JUDGE`