Bicha Ram And Another v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-38023 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38023 of 2016 Date of Decision: 30.03.2017 Bicha Ram and another ....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present:
Mr. Naveen Jaglan, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Nara, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Harpreet Kaur, A.A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate for the complainant. ******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners in case FIR No. 238 dated 05.10.2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala.
Heard.
As per allegation in FIR, complainant executed sale deed no. 1360 dated 17.08.2016 of her land measuring 2 kanals 8 marlas 6 sarsai in favour of Sunita Devi. The sale deed was registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Naraingarh. At the time of execution of sale deed, complainant was assured that a sum of `4 lacs will be paid to her after execution and registration of sale deed but this amount was not paid and the complainant was cheated. Before registration of FIR, parties had compromised the matter and DDR No. 33 dated 20.08.2016 was recorded whereby Jaspal Singh husband of Sunita Devi took responsibility to pay amount of `4 lacs to complainant. Jitender Kumar 2017.03.30 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38023 of 2016 -2However, that amount was never paid and ultimately FIR was registered. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Bicha Ram and Jaspal Singh son of Ram Singh are marginal witnesses of the sale deed and are not liable for the transaction between the complainant and vendee or her husband.
Learned counsel for the complainant argues that Bicha Ram and Jaspal Singh have also connived with Sunita Devi and her husband in getting the sale deed executed in their favour without payment of entire sale consideration, as such, they are not entitled to anticipatory bail. He further submits that three other FIRs have been registered against Jaspal Singh son of Ram Singh and one against Bicha Ram.
On giving a careful thought to submissions of learned counsel for petitioners and learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to petitioners. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and order dated 15.12.2016 is made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following terms:- (i) that petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required; (ii) that petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against them so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
(iv) that petitioners will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court.
March 30, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Jitender Kumar 2017.03.30 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH