Daljit Singh v. State Of Punjab




 


 

  
   




!
"#$%$ &'
 (
)*)% +




     

   '
 ,-
./
.




.
 

 

     !"  



# 

$   

  %    !"&



 '%     ( !
   

!%  

!" "#  

))) 

.
 +

0-1' (      * " +,- ./.01 3132  " 231 214 24/ 245 246 25. .31*, % .641 " 7 
"  

" "!     #  +,&    & "# ' "#   #

 

    '.886  "

& - .2  ./  9 +# "'    # 

  &#   # ,  '311/  "'

    - .2   # "#  

:&! ""  -  & &"' "",;   & &   ! #"' " &

 ## #      - .2   # $< = "#  & "  "#   "!% 
 
   ' ""    <#         
  ! 

    $' >" "2111;

' #  

  '&    "#  &>

:    &>"' ! # '

" ! &   & &:  & ! 

 ! # :  !   " &     ;          ;       &    "     '  "# "  -   "# "  ""  &      #*   "  "*"" "

 ? @ %"%?@ "*""  "

 '    "!  # '

  +,  !   "   !             &'

      #! "    * %    9   -   & &#!01 1/

,#       ' 

 "      '#"  " :

       :;  &          13 1/  : "      "'   
      &    #& "%"<   
"

 '&#   
 !- 00012 .3 31.6     "'"!; ' ; :&!  ! & #& #- .1 
   &  "&  ;   ,#  - 58032 .3 3131  - 000& & #A  "&#    ! " &  # 
  '31.0*.2 ,#  ; '     - 000 0.0"   "'&& '  "#B  "     
  '31.6*31.8  '    "'   ; '&#  

,  ' "    "#    "! '31.6*.8 "!  -  //4  31.6   C # 

  !  

#    .2 .3 3130     "!      %-  -

1111.1331.6 %- 8031.6C #

$<D&#& &  3.

.1 ,      - 000;#   ;&   '   #!' ! &  '   -  & '         

"

 ''

- '  "##' #    "##  " &    #    " :"    ; :'   !  -"!'"# #  "; #  "# '! "& '    !    "'

E #     !>  * 5.

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. The complainant has appeared through counsel and copies of certain orders passed in the Civil suits as filed by the complainant have also been placed on record. It is submitted in the status report and it has been argued by learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. After receipt of complaint, inquiry was conducted in the matter and it has been revealed that despite passing of stay order by the civil court, Derabassi with regard to the share of the complainant in the joint land wherein the plots purchased by him were existing, the co-accused Rajesh Bansal etc. had executed sale deed of 4000 sq. yards of land from their joint khata.

It is argued that the petitioner by conspiring with the co-accused had reported false fact to the effect that no court case was pending, neither there was any encumbrance upon the disputed plot and due to the said false report, non encumbrance certificate has been issued in favour of the above named Rajesh Bansal etc. and they also procured CLU qua 4000 sq. yards of land. The petitioner had made report after checking the jamabandi on 19.04.

 fact that in the latest jamabandi pertaining to the year 2018-19, the factum of pendency of civil suits filed by the complainant was very much reflected. It is argued that in connivance with the petitioner, the co-accused got prepared forged document of the share of land of the complainant and thereby cheated the complainant and also committed offence of forgery. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must for going to the root of the matter. Hence, it is argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

7.

It has not been disputed by the petitioner that he was posted as Halka Patwari of village Singpura on 19.04.2023 and had prepared a report to the effect that the property in dispute was free from any encumbrance and no litigation was pending qua the same. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-4 copy of jamabandi for the year 2018-19 that a rapat No. 333 was made on 04.12.2018 with regard to the status of civil suit bearing CNR No.

1111.1331.6C #

 !      D :  " " > */>" 

  #  ' ! "  -  580 !   '      "!  #

 !   D  #  # ?  "    &     %&  '#   - 583 & ;

 "!C #

 ! 

  D  -  %*.1/3A31.6            #     3.

..

31.6 ,#' "    " #   """' 
 '31.6* .8 & "#B   ! '

# & ' 
 '31.0*.2 &!    '  #   !#     #- 000' ! &   &      '        #  '         

:&!        "#
 '31.6*.8& ! !   # ,  !   
  "! C #

 !     D& & !'

#"

 

    > & '  

  '#  
  '31.0*.2 

 


    '31.6*.8 &

&  !         "'  "!    ;      '

"

"     " ! & "*""&  &    & # "# "    &  ; # 

 ' "!#  !! "&   ; ' ;#   ;"

  ; #

,    &   '               ! 

2 "&>"" 

&  !   '  :"#"'  ""#   "# " "

 " "



  !    #  "    # Moreso, it is well settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. ( %

   "'       # ""# "' % "   " ;!'#"    ;  "& & " "& !  " 206%

% The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does

3 not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 9.

 "     #        #   

"  '   "

4

.
 5


  (
)*)% +