High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/43735/2023dismissed

Sohan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2024-03-20Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi11 pages

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

Sohan Singh ...... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab

...Respondent

, -

Present:

Mr. Satnam Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Govind Tanwar, Advocate, for the complainant.

*****

+ 0!1 The prayer in this second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.9 dated 08.01.2014 under Sections 406, 420 and 1204B IPC registered at Police Station City Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

The brief facts of the case are that one Iqbal Singh filed complaints dated 01.09.2011 and 29.09.2011 to the police which on an enquiry culminated into the instant FIR and reads as under:4

! "#$! " "

!# % & "

() (* () (* ++, ()) " - ., '"

/"" / ' 0 1" 2 "/2"- .,

" ' "0 1" 2 /2

/" "' 34 ! -!1 1 - 5663(+7+*(3*4+4 " #$! -!1 1 - 84 " ! # -! +6 92 '

: " 56)3..7 ;6*6.4 "

/ / / " //

/ "!7%& 3633 !# 2

- " <1 = 663.+,.+386.3**,+.+(6.3*.*+(((

" 2

/# 2 " 2 "

3..;!

+6!6!33 '%& '' "

2 " ? >

$ ' ' " / % ? >

$ % "? >

$ 54 2 ' @ -?

:A-?>- &/ "

' 2 '" "

0 "

/% "

%& 0"

);+,,( " '

' 0"' " () 5,7() 4 ()) '! ;.,!*+( " " #' - 3, '2 "

"/' 0"'

"# $! ! -!1 1 - " (* 5,7(* 4 ()) '!

"- 3, '2 "# );+,,( >

' " !# +6 92 '

: "'%& " () 5,7() 4

" " 2" - 3,

" 2 /0" ' !1 "#

B 2$! -!1 " 33( 533( 4 ()) " "/ ' 0" / 2 " "

'%& " (* 5,7(* 4

()) "2"- 3, ' 2 /0" / " ' #

B 2 $! );+,,( %& 0".

' "# " " " "- ., " 1"' 0" 3;(+,,;

" ' 2 /%&

1" 3*,(

12 /" '

" +,8;8 "" /" ()) " 3((,;"' 0 ""

" / " # "

" "

""0 1" " !#

- +6 92 '

" ' "2 2 > 0"

);,( ' 2 / ' !1 " ' #

B 2

-! 1 " 0"' '%& !# 2

- " > 2" %& - *(,,,,!7 2 ' " / ' %2 / / = &/ " ' # "#$!

B 2$!

2 "" " ' " " # "

" 2 ' 0" .

"2"- ., %& "

' 0" 1" "

% "

"" =%- "!7

" %?>$54""+*+3+> '%

% @7? >

$ 54 ' % " " 1A

"" "!7 % % @7? >

$ 54 +*+3+ 2

1 / " ' ' % 2 >

" ' " A ' % 2 >

"1 514 "0

$ 2

' &/ 11A ' 3(6*11A ""3*3+38

3+)8 !

""3633 "3..; ""+663+

%& ! # -!C

- " "1 = %20 "

" ' " % 2 >

% / 7

" .,;.+,3+,7D % " " ' "# " " "!711A > '

"" >/ # " 2 "!7

2 =%- " 2

2 " / =%- '""% &

" >

- " 1 #' " =%- '

% 2 ""

"E 3.

The wife of the present petitioner, namely, Harinder Kaur approached this Court for the grant of pre4arrest bail by filing of CRM4M4 3733 of 2014 and was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.03.2014 subject to the following conditions:4 F

'" " (,G 2" / " '

" 2 / "" "

' " @7 54 '

2 "' &" / " '

2 - 8

' " "/ "" / 54 '

'2"

2 / % " 2 / " " '

"FH 4.

The present petitioner earlier approached this Court for the grant of pre4arrest bail by filing a petition bearing No. CRM4M47617 of 2014 which was dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2014 with the following observations:4 "

"22" I3,

" 2"' 7 " 0 "" ' "

/ I3,

%& " /

"' "" 0" / 0 7 1 "' "

! / I3,

H 5.

Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) for the grant of pre4arrest bail by way of a petition bearing BA No.1121 of 2020 which was dismissed vide order dated 13.07.2020 with the following observations:4 E " 8"

2" /

/ 2

+,3. "2 "

/' ?2

₹ '" / 3,,,,,,!7 / " ' " " /

" /

" " " "= " -"- E 6.

So far as Mohinder Singh is concerned, he was arrested in the present case on 08.12.2023 and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. stands presented against him on 04.02.2024.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The dispute which was purely of a civil nature had been converted into a criminal case. The instant FIR had been got registered as the complainant could neither institute

a suit for recovery nor did he file a suit for specific performance of the contract. While granting interim bail to the petitioner at the first instance, the Court could not have directed him to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant4Iqbal Singh. Be that as it may, the petitioner had indeed tried to arrange money but could not do so. He had agreed to make the payment but to his shock, the complainant had stated that he would charge a sum of Rs.5 lacs to give consent for the grant of bail to him and his wife. It was, in these circumstances, that his first bail petition came to be dismissed as he was unable to arrange the said amount and a further amount of Rs.5 lacs as sought by the complainant. As the dispute was purely of a civil nature and the petitioner was ready and willing to join the investigation, he was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

The learned counsel for the State alongwith the counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, while referring to the replies dated 29.09.2023and 20.03.2024 contend that the petitioner and his wife were playing hide and seek with the Court. His wife4Harinder Kaur had been granted the concession of anticipatory bail with the condition that she would deposit 50% of the amount received by her. She failed to do so for the last 10 years and therefore, the State was in the process of filing a petition to cancel her bail. So far as the present petitioner was concerned, he had consented to pay an amount of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant. It was only when the said payment was not made, that his bail application came to be dismissed. Interestingly, his first petition for bail was dismissed way back on 07.04.2014. Thereafter, he approached the Sessions Court once again which dismissed his third petition for the grant of anticipatory bail on 13.07.2020 after which he approached this Court. He had been absconding

for the last 10 years. Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the accused and his arrest warrants had also been obtained from the Court and efforts were being made to execute them. On account of the lapse on the part of the investigating agency, departmental action had been ordered against various police officials. Be that as it may, an SIT had now been constituted which had led to the arrest of Mohinder Singh, a co4 accused of the petitioner and a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stands presented against him. As the first bail petition of the petitioner came to be dismissed way back in the year 2014, the instant second petition had been filed without any change in natural circumstances, the offence stood

established against him and he had been absconding from the last 10 years, he was not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Reliance is placed on

! " ## $

$% &

' ( )

*$ $% +

$ ,+ 9.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

- has held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the

case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:4 % / " / "

- " 37 "/

"%'

% 2 >

" & - " 3 " 2 D / 2 ' - " 3 &" " ' " 2 " " / / $ " ' '

/ / " / " "

" '"

/ ' /0 " " ' / " 2/ > > " " "

/ / "

" & " " " . # '$ # /

- 0 ) $'

$ '$$ 1 / 1 ')

$ '$

$1$

- '$ # / # /

$ /

$ '$'

$ $% 0 % $ ' %$ '$

$1$

$ /# $ '$- $ 0$

/ 1$$ $ $ 1 '$ # / $

$1$ ' / $ $%

) ' $ / '$

$1 0 $

$ 0

' 1 '$

!1 '$ # / 3

# / # ' 0' '$

$1$ $% ''

# $ /

- / $ $ %' ' 1 ''

/ 1$

$ $)

$$!

'$ # / 3 % %$

$ 1 '$ 1 '$ # / '$ $

%' ' 1 ''

$% $%% '

$$!

$ $1 0 )

# $% $

$1$ ' / $ $% $ $

$1$ 4$0 )

- ) % '$

$1$ $

$ '

- /#

%- '$ / 1 $ $ 1 '$ # / H 11.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ! " ## $

$% & ' ( )

*$ $% +

$ ,+ has held as under:4 "+. $ 2 "/ " ' / 0" / ' / ' " " / / " / % "& " "" " /" " " $

" 0 " ' " 2/ " / " "

2 0 / "

" 2" $

" "2 "

" "

" " " "

"2" ' " "' / "

" / / ' ' "

" 20" / ' / '

" 2 ' 7

0 0 D

5 4 /" / " " " " H 12.

An examination of the record would reveal that the FIR was registered on 08.01.2014 on the basis of complaints made in September, 2011. The wife of the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail on

certain conditions which she refused to fulfill. On account of extreme laxity on the part of the investigating agency, no further action was taken against her for cancellation of the bail granted to her. So far as the present petitioner was concerned, his first bail petition came to be declined vide order dated 07.04.2014 after which he had been absconding. He had instituted his third petition for the grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which also came to be dismissed. It was only three years thereafter that he filed the instant second petition for the grant of anticipatory bail without any change in the circumstances whatsoever. A perusal of the FIR would reveal that not only is the offence established but the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. Even otherwise, as he is absconding for the last 10 years and warrants of arrest have also been issued against him, the question of grant of anticipatory bail to him at this stage does not arise. 13.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.

14.

However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence lead before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.

!0'2 / sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No