Ashok Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 07.02.2022

Pronounced on: 21.02.2022 Ashok Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocate for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 24.09.2018 Bapoli, District 419, 420, 467, 471 & 120-B PAnipat IPC 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2.

In paragraph 17 of the petition, it is declared that the accused has no criminal history.

3.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in compliance of order dated 01.11.2021 the petitioner has joined the investigation.

4.

Learned State counsel has seriously opposed the bail application and submit that they want to arrest the petitioner. He further submits that custodial investigation is also required to find out about involvement of more people who may be part of this land grabbing conspiracy and recovery is yet to be effected. REASONING:

5.

The State has filed its response by way of status report supported by an affidavit of Inspector Lehna Singh, Incharge, State Crime Branch, Sonipat. Para 6 is relevant

which reads as under:-
 

       

         !  

 

 "            

# 

$ %

 

$" & &  &  "'" ()*       &      &    "    +     ,+& )"  &  " & &    +    &        "  & &  ()   '

    -   (&   +  .   -       +& -+     -+              %   .

 /  ( 0       '"   */"  1%$ &  0 &  " & " &*+ 

, 0& "  '&         

   -+      & "'"( &        * 2/ 

  

 -+         *2/     " *         3                      & &   -+     &  +   ! )/  +    &" +&  "  +   & '"  &     '

      ,+&   )     + &    "

      !     "&&       & &    +     ' &  ""3   % 

/   &  "/  -+  

4  +   5*  6  '

  &     &     '

         '"         !

4  -+    +    )/   +    "   '  + ()        '

    !      "         "      ' 4  -+   &* ## 

%#$ (!(!(+)       +         0 " '+ -+   

 "  3 4      

  #

    '+  * ## 

% #  7  '++   

8

6.

As per para 6 of the status report, during the course of investigation the police had arrested Balwan Singh and Suresh Kumar on 31.05.2021. After that, during their interrogation they revealed that the petitioner-Ashok Kumar knew about the land measuring 45 kanals and 10 marlas that it was mortgaged by Ramniwas in the year 1947. Thus he has a conspiracy with Balwan Singh and Suresh Kumar. As a part of this conspiracy, Ashok Kumar filed a case for redemption of the said land through the person who impersonated as Suresh and also obtained a power of attorney by making a fraud. As a part of that conspiracy, Ashok Kumar got the land transferred in favour of his wife-Mithlesh Kumari.

7.

An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner. Suffice to say that the petitioner and his wife apparently took advantage of lacuna and lack of digitilisation in the land ownership record system as well as the mode of transfer of ownership. The entire land was grabbed by fraudulent ways and elaborate deception. Given the area of land involved and the mode in which the land transferred in favour of wife of the petitioner, he is not entitled to bail. Further, the recovery is yet to be effected.

8.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application.

The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime.

unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.

9.

In the light of ratio of the judicial precedents mentioned above, the petitioner's case does not fall in the category of cases where bail ought to be granted.

10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage.

11. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All interim orders granting bail stand vacated. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. Interim order dated 01.11.2021, is hereby recalled. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE February 21, 2022 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.