Balvinder Singh v. State Of Haryana
!
"#$# %& '
( )% *
& +, -.
-
-
!"# $
! % &&&
- * /,0& (
)*+, , # ( -.% ( / -.1 2
10.06.2024 Sadar, Sirsa 34, 380, 427 and 457 of IPC, 3 % -./
( / % ( %4
/ %
%
% 5# 6% 7 ( 8/
/
% / 9 ( /
% ( % '
% % %: *7 ;; ;;;<0 8/
% / % %
% /(
/ %
( # % %
% /( (
( '
% 9
%
% / , /
(
% % 9 ( % / =% %/ /
( % / 9
0 / %
% %/
/
( %/
% #
>%
# % %
9 / #
%/ % ( / (
'
! %
(
%
(
( % '
% ( %
#
-. / /'
%
(( , /
/% :);?3;3) * ( (
( ( % ( %/ /
#
( (
%( /
% ! %.(%
% ( 9 ( /
% /
/
(!
% ( ( %
'
/ / / / % '
!
> 1
( % %'
( 9 ( ( 4.
Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued on the other hand that there are serious and specific
allegations against the petitioner. His son executed an agreement to sell his property measuring 9 kanals, 17 marlas and 5 sarsai in favour of the complainant and three other persons after receiving entire sale consideration amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- in the year 2012 and the petitioner was attesting witness to the said agreement. The actual physical possession of the said property had been handed over to the complainant and the co-purchaser at the same time after receiving entire sale consideration amount but ever since then the petitioner and his son have not been coming forward to execute sale deed in their favour. Rather, now in connivance with his son and to avoid execution of sale deed, the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against the complainant and co-purchaser only with malafide.
Not only this, by hatching conspiracy with his son, the petitioner has not only wrongfully trespassed into the property in their possession but also committed theft of iron room and the articles kept therein by cutting the boundary fencing of this property. His custodial interrogation is required for recovery of the stolen property as well as for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. Therefore, it is argued that he does not deserve to be given concession of pre-arrest bail.
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.
6.
The petitioner in-connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have taken away/removed an iron room installed in the land which is subject
matter of dispute between the parties by way of civil litigation. He is also alleged to have removed agricultural equipment and other articles belonging to the complainant with the help of bulldozer by cutting the iron fencing of the said property. The complainant has shown copy of agreement shown to be executed by the son of the petitioner in favour of the complainant and three other persons and as per terms of the same, the possession of abovesaid property was handed over to the complainant and co-purchasers by receiving entire sale consideration amount in the year 2012. The powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised in extra ordinary and sparing circumstances and the same should not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. The petitioner is accused of committing theft in the property in possession of complainant. It is well settled that c
> % > / / / (
)*+ , , % (
. %
(8 / (!
/
( % ( 9
% / ( % . %
>
% (
1 9 (
(% % 7.
. / ( %
( ( 9 % 8.
% ( %
2
- 3
'
( )% *