PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 411, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
411
411
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No 1793 of 2023)
JULY 07, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 – Anticipatory
bail – Rejection of – Appellants’ case that they had possession over
the subject land and they never sold the subject land to anyone nor
have they ever executed any power of attorney (GPA) in favor of
any third party – However, appellants learnt that the accused persons
had approached the halqa patwari to sanction mutation of the
aforesaid land – It was alleged that the application for mutation
was based on a forged and fabricated sale deed dated 24.02.2022
– Appellant also learnt that the said sale deed was based on yet
another, purportedly, forged and fabricated GPA dated 18.09.1996
– FIR registered against respondent no.2 and other accused persons
u/ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC – Respondent no.2
fearing arrest filed an application for anticipatory bail before the
Sessions Judge but the same was dismissed – However, the High
Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused – On appeal, held:
According to respondent no.2, what transpired in 1996 was sale of
the subject land through GPA – However, regardless of obtaining
all the rights over the subject land, respondent no.2 never informed
the Revenue/local authorities that he had purportedly ‘purchased’
the subject land through a GPA – The ownership of the land always
remained in the name of the
appellants in the revenue record – A
portion of subject land was acquired by the government after
execution of the 1996 GPA and compensation was paid to the
appellants – Respondent no.2 neither objected to the payment of
such compensation nor asserted his title over the land, which he
normally would have done had he possessed any rights over it –
Respondent no.2 failed to show payment of consideration to the
appellants – Sale deed was executed without mentioning PAN number
or deducting TDS – It is also unclear that when subject land was
situated in Gurugram district, why the GPA was registered in Kalkaji
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 411 : 2023 INSC 612
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
– There are overwhelming prima facie evidences to indicate that the
version of events provided by respondent no.2 , the buyers of
property and Sub-registrar should be viewed with scepticism – A
thorough investigation is required by the investigating authorities –
Therefore, custodial interrogation of respondent no.2 and other
accused required – Order of the High Court granting bail set aside.
Bail – Anticipatory Bail – Purpose – The relief of Anticipatory
Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights – While it serves as
a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects
innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges
in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and
the interests of justice and striking a balance between safeguarding
individual rights and protecting public interest – While the right to
liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also
consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the
need for a fair and free investigation.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at
safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to
prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent
individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in
maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the
interests of justice. The tight rope lies in
striking a balance
between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public
interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence
are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence,
the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation.
The court’s discretion in weighing these interests in the facts
and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to
ensure a just outcome. [Para 19][421-E-G]
2. In light of Respondent No. 2’s own contention, what
transpired in 1996 was the sale of the Subject Land through the
GPA. Upon reviewing a copy of the alleged 1996 GPA presented
to the court, the Appellants relinquished all crucial rights
pertaining to the Subject Land. These rights include possession
of the land, handling water, sewer, electricity, power connections,
and other services related to the property, paying lease payments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
413
and other dues, making additions or modifications to the existing
structure with required permissions, renting out the land, issuing
receipts, and managing tenant-related matters. Furthermore, the
Appellants granted authority for selling, disposing, or transferring
the land, entering into agreements, and receiving consideration
on behalf of the principal. However, regardless of obtaining all
the rights over the Subject Land, Respondent No. 2 does not
appear to have ever informed the Revenue/local authorities that
he had purportedly ‘purchased’ the Subject Land through a GPA.
The ownership of the land always remained in the name of the
Appellants in the revenue record and no application for change
of mutation, etc. was moved by the 2nd Respondent. At a very
belated stage, after the execution of the alleged 1996 GPA, a
portion of the Subject Land was acquired by the Government and
compensation in this regard was paid to the Appellants.
Respondent No. 2 neither objected to the payment of such
compensation nor asserted his title over the land, which he
normally would have done had he possessed any rights over it. It
would be incongrous to accept transfer of ownership rights in an
immovable property merely on execution of a power of attorney.
[Para 20][422-A-F]
3. A certified copy of this GPA is said to have been relied
upon to execute the disputed sale deed. The Court fails to
understand or comprehend as to how a bona fide purchaser could
pay crores of rupees
as sale consideration to a person who neither
possesses documents showing ownership and title nor has
original GPA of the true owner(s) of the property being sold. The
fact that the sale deed was allegedly executed without mentioning
the PAN Number or without deducting TDS, underlines the
dubious nature of this transaction. The Court is equally intrigued
at the behaviour of the Registering Authorities and their
acceptance of the conveyance deed in the absence of these
formalities being completed. The Sub-Registrar and his officials
were obligated to verify the ownership rights before registration
of the sale deed. As per the Appellants’ claim, the prior original
sale deeds of the land are still in their possession. The fact that
the vendee agreed to pay such massive sums of money to
Respondent No. 2 without obtaining the original records as of
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &
ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
414
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
now casts a shadow over the legitimacy of the transaction. [Para
21][422-G-H; 423-A-B]
4. It is also unclear why, given that when the Subject Land
is situated in Gurugram District, the GPA in relation to the
property was registered in Kalkaji, New Delhi. It raises some
suspicion regarding the genuineness of the GPA. There is, thus,
overwhelming and clear cut prima facie evidence to indicate that
the version of events provided by Respondent No. 2, the buyers
of the property, and the Sub Registrar, should be viewed with
scepticism. These parties, prima facie, appear to be acting in
concert with each other and might be hands in glove, with the
ulterior motive of duping the absentee land-owners. This angle
requires thorough consideration by the investigating authorities.
The Appellants have seemingly fallen prey to a well-orchestrated
conspiracy hatched to rob them of their highly valuable property.
In such cases where the victims of a crime, on account of their
old age and geographical distance, are unable to secure justice
on their own, it falls upon Courts and the State to carry out their
solemn duty to ward off injustice and restore the faith of one and
all in the rule of law. [Para 23][423-E-G]
5. The facts of the case speak for themselves and an
element of criminality cannot be ruled out at this stage. Whether
or not the alleged offences were committed by Respondent No.
2 and his co-accused in active collusion with
each other can be
effectively determined by a free, fair, unhampered and
dispassionate investigation. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of not only
Respondent No. 2 but all other suspects is, therefore, imperative
to unearth the truth. Joining the investigation with a protective
umbrella provided by pre-arrest bail will render the exercise of
eliciting the truth ineffective in such like case. The Court, as
mentioned, also skeptical, suspicious and incredulous about the
verification process of the 1996 GPA carried out by the Sub-
Registrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Hence, the conduct of the officials
of Sub-Registrar Office, Kalkaji, New Delhi is also required to
be examined to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
[Para 28][424-G-H; 425-A-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
415
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
565 : [1980] 3 SCR 383; Sushila Aggarwal v. State
(NCT of Delhi) (2018) 7 SCC 731 : [2018] 6 SCR 825
– followed.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
(2011) 1 SCC 694 : [2010] 15 SCR 201 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 15 SCR 201
relied on
Para 17
[1980] 3 SCR 383
followed
Para 17
[2018] 6 SCR 825
followed
Para 18
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1793 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2022 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.24093 of 2022.
Saket Sikri, Gautam Kazanchi, Ajaypal Singh Kullar, Vikalp
Mudgal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, A.A.G., Maninder Singh, Anupam Lal Das,
Sr. Advs., Dr. Monika Gusain, Raktim Gogoi, Kartikeya Singh, Vaibhav
Tomar, S. Vinod, Shivam Pal Sharma, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SURYA KANT, J.
1. Application seeking permission to file the SLP is allowed. Leave
Granted.
2. The instant appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) dated
31.05.2022, whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,
‘Cr.P.C’) and granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 in FIR No.
113 of 2022, dated 16.03.2022, registered at PS Badshahpur, district
Gurugram, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’).
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &
ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
A. FACTS
3. The abovementioned FIR was lodged by the Appellants against
Respondent No. 2 and other co-accused individuals, namely, Shel Narang,
Bhim Singh and Vinod. According to the contents of the FIR, the
Appellants are senior citizens who were owners and had possession
over the land bearing rect. No. 55, Killa No. 3/1 (7-9), 4/1 (7-13),
measuring 15 Kanal 2 Marla, situated within the revenue estate of Village
Begampur Khatola, Tehsil Kadipur, District Gurugram (hereinafter,
‘Subject Land’) for over a period of 30 years. The Appellants claim that
they never sold the Subject Land to anyone nor have they ever executed
any power of attorney (hereinafter, ‘GPA’) in favor of any third party.
The area has, in their version of events, always been unequivocally under
their possession and has never been ceded in any form or fashion to
people outside the family.
4. On 28.02.2022, Appellant No. 2 went to Patwar Bhawan,
Gurugram to obtain revenue papers for the Subject Land. He discovered
there only that a person named Bhim Singh Rathi had approached the
halqa patwari to sanction mutation of the aforementioned land. The
application for mutation was, as per the Appellants, based on a forged
and fabricated sale deed bearing vasika No. 11493 dated 24.02.2022
(hereinafter, ‘2022 Sale Deed’). After looking into the matter further,
Appellant No. 2 learned that the said sale deed was registered in the
office of Sub-Registrar
Kadipur, District Gurugram and was executed
by Respondent No. 2. The execution in question was based on yet another,
purportedly, forged and fabricated GPA bearing Vasika No. 13907 dated
18.09.1996 (hereinafter, ‘1996 GPA’), registered in the office of Sub-
Registrar-V, South East Delhi.
5. The Appellants, as alluded to earlier, have adopted the stance
that they never executed or registered any GPA in favor of Respondent
No. 2, nor are they even acquainted with him in any form or fashion.
Instead, both the 1996 GPA and the 2022 Sale Deed were completely
fraudulent documents created by Respondent No. 2 and the remaining
co-accused named in the FIR, in collusion with other officials at the
Sub-Registrar’s office. These actions were carried out in complete
subterfuge and without any involvement of the Appellants.
6. The Appellants claim that they are in possession of the original
sale deed for the Subject Land, and a true copy of it was attached to the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417
complaint. Upon examining the 2022 Sale Deed, it was apparent to them
that the accused had failed to provide a PAN Number, which is
mandatorily required for a valid sale deed. Furthermore, there was no
mention of the 1% amount of Tax Deducted at Source (hereinafter,
‘TDS’) being deposited, which also forms part of the requirements for
execution and registration of a sale deed.
7. The complaint also mentioned the current market value of the
Appellants’ land, measuring 15 Kanal 2 Marla, as being approximately
not less than Rs. 50 crores. However, in the 2022 Sale Deed, the sale
consideration was shown as an abjectly low and meager amount of Rs.
6,60,62,500/-, which was significantly below its actual asking price.
Moreover, the Appellants had not received even this miniscule amount
even if the 2022 Sale Deed was hypothetically considered to be valid.
Thus, this document was clearly created by Respondent No. 2 and the
co-accused in collusion with the witnesses, the scribe, and officials of
the Sub-Registrar Tehsil Kadipur, District Gurugram, with the unholy
intention to wisk the property away from the the complainants and place
it under the possession of the accused.
8. Accordingly, the First Information Report was registered at
Police Station, Badshahpur, Gurugram, and an investigation was initiated.
Respondent No. 2, fearing arrest if he were asked to appear before the
Investigating Officer, filed an application for Anticipatory Bail before
the Additional
Sessions Judge, Gurugram.
9. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, dismissed Respondent
No. 2’s application for anticipatory bail in an order dated 23.05.2022,
while observing that:
i.
Respondent No. 2 was accused of allegedly forging a GPA
and executing the 2022 Sale Deed. The original 1996 GPA
was still to be recovered by the police. Several questions
pertaining to the whereabouts of the 1996 GPA, the
execution of the sale deed, the payment of sale
consideration, sanctioning of the mutation, and the
relationship between Respondent No. 2 and the Appellants,
were all to be ascertained;
ii.
The allegations against Respondent No. 2 were serious,
and filing a civil suit did not absolve them of criminal liability.
Anticipatory bail was to be granted only in exceptional
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &
ANR. [SURYA KANT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
circumstances, as a person under pre-arrest bail may not
disclose all the relevant facts under questioning, due to the
safeguard provided under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Custodial interrogation of Respondent No. 2 was necessary
for a thorough investigation, given all the outstanding points
of inquiry that remained pending.
10. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 2 filed an application for
Anticipatory Bail before the High Court. The High Court, vide impugned
order dated 31.05.2022, allowed the application and granted him
Anticipatory Bail. The High Court, inter alia, observed that:
i.
The dispute involves the validity of the 1996 GPA and the
misappropriation of the purported sale consideration. Civil
suits have been filed regarding the ownership and possession
of the property already and a handwriting expert’s report
was crucial in determining the authenticity of the signatures;
ii.
The High Court acknowledged the pendency of ongoing
civil suits and suggested that the validity of the 1996 GPA’s
execution could be determined by the civil court, and did
not need to be a determinative factor in the proceedings for
anticpatory bail;
iii.
Prima facie, it seemed that the involvement of the criminal
justice system, initiated by the Appellants, might be an
attempt to settle certain transactions and resolve ongoing
disputes between them. In this background, to ensure that
justice was done for both the Appellants and Respondent
No. 2,
directions were issued for them to provide their
specimen signatures. The handwriting expert was tasked
with comparing the writings and signatures to assess their
similarity.”
11. The High Court ordered that no arrest of Respondent No. 2
would be carried out as long as he provided personal and surety bonds
of Rs. 2 lakhs each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. While
extending these protections, Respondent No. 2 was also instructed to
cooperate with the investigation whenever required and to give an
undertaking to avoid tampering with prosecution evidence, or influence
any of the witnesses. Furthermore, a deposit of of Rs. 1.50 Crores was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
419
to be subimtted before the concerned Magistrate which would serve as
victim compensation and be disbursed based on the outcome of the trial.
12. The Appellants being aggrieved at the grant of anticipatory
bail, are before us.
B. CONTENTIONS
13. Shri Saket Sikri, learned counsel for the Appellants, vehemently
contended that the High Court acted on the erroneous assumption that
the alleged 1996 GPA in favor of Respondent No. 2 is genuine. The
original copy of 1996 GPA has not been recovered by the police till date,
and hence, custodial interrogation is required. Furthermore, the High
Court failed to consider that despite the 1996 GPA being executed in
favour of Respondent No. 2, he applied for its certified copy only in
February 2022, i.e., 26 years later, whereas he should have possessed
the original already if his claim is to be bona fide. The present case is
one where Respondent No. 2, in collusion with other accused persons,
has carried out an elaborate fraud against the Appellants, who are
vulnerable owing to their age and the NRI status. Additionally, the
signatures used by Appellant No. 2 during the period between 1990-
2000 are dissimilar, unalike and non-identical from those inscribed on the
alleged GPA dated 18.09.1996. In addition, the consideration of the
alleged sale deed - Rs. 6.60 crores - is far less than the market value of
the Subject Land, which is stated to be Rs. 50 crores.
14. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 – State of Haryana, strongly
contested the grant of anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 and supported
the stand taken by the Appellants. It was argued that a strong prima
facie case has been made out against Respondent No. 2, and that his
custodial interrogation is vital to the objective of unearthing the larger
conspiracy.
15. Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel representing
Respondent No. 2, vigorously defended High Court’s view and asserted
that each and every allegation, contention, and submission made by the
Appellants was factually and legally incorrect. Learned Senior Counsel
argued that Respondent No.2 had originally purchased the land in question
from the Appellants in the year 1996. However, at that time, there was
a third-party lease existing on the land. In order to address this, the
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &
ANR. [SURYA KANT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
Appellants executed 1996 GPA, which was duly registered at the office
of the Sub-Registrar, Kalkaji, Delhi. This GPA has not been disputed in
any court of law and has not been challenged by the Appellants up to the
time the civil suits were filed, clearly showing that the contestation of its
validity was merely an afterthought. Respondent No. 2 had full
authorization through the 1996 GPA to execute a registered deed of
conveyance for the property in question and receive consideration for it.
On 24.02.2022, Respondent No. 2 sold the land through the exercise of
power vested in him by virtue of the 1996 GPA. However, the purchasers
have not been included as parties before this Court. The authenticity of
the GPA had been verified according to the report of the Sub Registrar,
Kalkaji, dated 13.02.2022 and the sale of the land only took place after
the receipt of the verification report. It was only after this that the
Appellants began threatening Respondent No. 2 and the purchasers,
and subsequently filed the civil suits contesting the validity of the GPA.
Furthermore, the High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Respondent
No. 2 subject to strict conditions such as providing specimen signatures
to the Investigating Officer and depositing Rs. 1.50 crores. The police
have also obtained records from the Sub Registrar’s office and
Respondent No. 2 has complied with all the conditions imposed on him
by the High Court.
C.
ANALYSIS
16. It goes without saying that the alleged offences of forging
documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores of rupees
are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the
personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon us to analyze
the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial
interrogation.
17. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra1, this Court carefully considered the principles established
by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab2
case. After a thorough deliberation, this court arrived at the following
conclusion:
“112. The following factors and parameters can be taken
into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
1 (2011) 1 SCC 694.
2 (1980) 2 SCC 565.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
421
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact
role of the accused must be properly comprehended before
arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment
on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar
or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object
of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or
her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases
of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
xxx          xxx            xxx”
18. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)3, the Constitution
Bench reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatory
bail, courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the
case.
19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding
individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse
of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment,
it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between
individual rights and the interests of justice.The tight rope we must walk
lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and
protecting
public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of
innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence,
the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The
court’s discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and
circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just
outcome.
20. Adverting to some of the undisputed facts in this case, it is
clear that the 1996 GPA has not yet seen the light of the day. No indication
3 (2018) 7 SCC 731.
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &
ANR. [SURYA KANT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
regarding the location of the original document has been placed before
us. In light of Respondent No. 2’s own contention, what transpired in
1996 was the sale of the Subject Land through the GPA. Upon reviewing
a copy of the alleged 1996 GPA presented to the court, the Appellants
relinquished all crucial rights pertaining to the Subject Land. These rights
include possession of the land, handling water, sewer, electricity, power
connections, and other services related to the property, paying lease
payments and other dues, making additions or modifications to the existing
structure with required permissions, renting out the land, issuing receipts,
and managing tenant-related matters. Furthermore, the Appellants granted
authority for selling, disposing, or transferring the land, entering into
agreements, and receiving consideration on behalf of the principal.
However, regardless of obtaining all the rights over the Subject Land,
Respondent No. 2 does not appear to have ever informed the Revenue/
local authorities that he had purportedly ‘purchased’ the Subject Land
through a GPA. The ownership of the land always remained in the name
of the Appellants in the revenue record and no application for change of
mutation, etc. was moved by the 2nd Respondent. We are informed that
at a very belated stage, after the execution of the alleged 1996 GPA, a
portion of the Subject Land was acquired by the Government and
compensation in
this regard was paid to the Appellants. Respondent No.
2 neither objected to the payment of such compensation nor asserted his
title over the land, which he normally would have done had he possessed
any rights over it. It would be incongrous to accept transfer of ownership
rights in an immovable property merely on execution of a power of
attorney.
21. We must keep in mind that the Subject Land is a prime property
situated in the National Capital Region. Even in the year 1996, it’s value
must have been quite significant. The 2nd Respondent has so far not
been able to show payment of any consideration to the Appellants in the
year 1996. The original GPA, as we have noted on multiple ocassions, is
conspicuous by its absence. A certified copy of this GPA is said to have
been relied upon to execute the disputed sale deed. We fail to understand
or comprehend as to how a bona fide purchaser could pay crores of
rupees as sale consideration to a person who neither possesses documents
showing ownership and title nor has original GPA of the true owner(s)
of the property being sold. The fact that the sale deed was allegedly
executed without mentioning the PAN Number or without deducting
TDS, underlines the dubious nature of this transaction. We are equally
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
423
intrigued at the behaviour of the Registering Authorities and their
acceptance of the conveyance deed in the absence of these formalities
being completed. The Sub-Registrar and his officials were obligated to
verify the ownership rights before registration of the sale deed. As per
the Appellants’ claim, the prior original sale deeds of the land are still in
their possession. The fact that the vendee agreed to pay such massive
sums of money to Respondent No. 2 without obtaining the original records
as of now casts a shadow over the legitimacy of the transaction.
22. It warrants mention here that the Appellants are elderly couple.
Being NRIs, the majority of their time is spent abroad. They have stated
that they were not in India at the time of execution of disputed sale
deed. The Appellants’ claim that the market value of the land is not less
than Rs. 50 crores, although not got verified yet by a valuation expert,
does not appear to be far off the mark. There is a serious allegation of
under-valuation of the land at the time of execution of the allegedly
fraudulent sale deed. The contention that the consideration of Rs.6.60
crores is much less than the market value of the Subject Land, thus, also
requires a deeper probe.
23. We are not oblivious of the fact that Respondent No. 2 is said
to have applied for the certified copy of the 1996 GPA in February, 2022
after a period of 26 years since its execution. It is also unclear why,
given that when the Subject
Land is situated in Gurugram District, the
GPA in relation to the property was registered in Kalkaji, New Delhi. It
raises some suspicion regarding the genuineness of the GPA. There is,
thus, overwhelming and clear cut prima facie evidence to indicate that
the version of events provided by Respondent No. 2, the buyers of the
property, and the Sub Registrar, should be viewed with scepticism. These
parties, prima facie, appear to be acting in concert with each other and
might be hands in glove, with the ulterior motive of duping the absentee
land-owners. This angle requires thorough consideration by the
investigating authorities. The Appellants have seemingly fallen prey to a
well-orchestrated conspiracy hatched to rob them of their highly valuable
property. In such cases where the victims of a crime, on account of their
old age and geographical distance, are unable to secure justice on their
own, it falls upon Courts and the State to carry out their solemn duty to
ward off injustice and restore the faith of one and all in the rule of law.
24. All these material facts which go to the root of the matter
were unfortunately not brought to the notice of the High Court. Had
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &
ANR. [SURYA KANT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
there been proper assistance, the High Court also would have given a
free hand to the investigating agency to investigate the role of Respondent
No. 2, the vendees, the Sub Registrar and other officials of the Registering
Authority, so as to uncover the collusion, connivance and conspiracy, if
any, engineered to commit fraud at the expense of the Appellants.
25. Land scams in India have been a persistent issue, involving
fraudulent practices and illegal activities related to land acquisition,
ownership, and transactions. Scammers often create fake land titles,
forge sale deeds, or manipulate land records to show false ownership or
an encumbrance-free status. Organized criminal networks often plan
and execute these intricate scams, exploiting vulnerable individuals and
communities, and resorting to intimidation or threats to force them to
vacate their properties. These land scams not only result in financial
losses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects,
erode public trust, and hinder socio-economic progress.
26. While we do not wish to comment further on this issue, we
believe it is necessary to foil any trace of organised crime perpetrated
by land mafia, through an unimpaired and unobstructed investigation.
27. It is inarguable that the cancellation of bail should be done
only for substantial and compelling reasons, however, setting aside an
erroneous bail order is altogether different
from cancelling bail. This
Court does not intend to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised
by the High Court in granting bail to an accused as a standard practice.
However, it is essential to ensure that all the material facts are brought
on record and thereafter only the discretionary jurisdiction is exercised
in accordance with the fundamental principles of anticipatory bail laid
down in various decisions over time by this Court.
28. It is immaterial that the genuineness of the 1996 GPA is already
sub-judice before the Civil Court in the civil suits pending between the
parties. The appellants, owing to their age and residential status, cannot
be expected to await indefinitely for the outcome of these civil
proceedings. Regardless, the pendency of these cases does not estop
the issues of forgery and fabrication being considered in the course of
criminal investigation. The facts of the case speak for themselves and
an element of criminality cannot be ruled out at this stage. Whether or
not the alleged offences were committed by Respondent No. 2 and his
co-accused in active collusion with each other can be effectively
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
425
determined by a free, fair, unhampered and dispassionate investigation.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation
of not only Respondent No. 2 but all other suspects is, therefore,
imperative to unearth the truth. Joining the investigation with a protective
umbrella provided by pre-arrest bail will render the exercise of eliciting
the truth ineffective in such like case. We are, as mentioned, also skeptical,
suspicious and incredulous about the verification process of the 1996
GPA carried out by the Sub-Registrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Hence, the
conduct of the officials of Sub-Registrar Office, Kalkaji, New Delhi is
also required to be examined to take the investigation to its logical
conclusion.
29. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are prima
facie in nature and shall not be taken as final conclusions.
D. CONCLUSION
30. In light of above discussion and without expressing any views
on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order
dated 31st May, 2022 passed by the High Court granting pre-arrest bail
to Respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside.
31. Given the facts and circumstances of this case, we expand
the scope of inquiry in these proceedings and direct the Commissioner
of Police, Gurugram to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to
be headed by an officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of
Police along with two Inspectors as its members. The SIT shall take
over
the investigation forthwith. The SIT shall have the liberty to subject
Respondent No. 2, the vendee(s), the Sub Registrar/officials, or other
suspects to custodial interrogation to arrive at a definite conclusion, strictly
in accordance with law.
32. In case the vendees, the officers/officials of the Registering
Authority have secured anticipatory bail from Sessions Court/High Court,
the SIT shall be at liberty to seek suitable modifications to such orders
so that no impediment is caused in carrying out a fair and free
investigation.
33. No interlocutory/interim order passed by the Civil Court shall
obstruct the ongoing investigation. The Civil Court shall not, from this
point forth, pass any such order in pending civil suits which may hamper
the ongoing investigation.
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &
ANR. [SURYA KANT, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
34. The SIT shall conclude the investigation as early as possible
and not later than two months from the date of this order.
35. The Commissioner of Police, Gurugram shall be personally
responsible for monitoring the day to day investigation.
36. The authorities of NCT of Delhi shall extend full cooperation
in the matter of verification of the genuineness of the GPA alleged to
have been registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi
in the year 1996.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)