Japinder Singh v. State Of Punjab


 


 

  
  






!
"#$%$ &'
( )
*+ ,-./



  





 '
 01
*2
*




*
    
 

 

 
 


 


 

*
 /

314' 
 



"


#$%

 &  '
(  )
 ) 
 
%*%+
,
  
-&(

./
)

 '
"

 
01

"23 01
( 4
"


 13.08.2024 Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib 420/120-B of IPC, 1860 %  



 
 
 
 
  3
 


 

""
%5
)"
+
 "
 "


"" 
&"

4 
)

2
 "

*$ *# %*%#

 



%% %6 ***73

)""

2  
2
8
2
 
 




96 ** ***73 2 

 

:

 






+ ** ***73 2





"

2
 


8

*% *;

%*%#


 
2

 

3
<"


  '

" 7 )
2 
2





+ ** ***73
'
 
" 
"



8

  

"


 

8

 
 

)



 
:

'
 "

 
 


 8

 

1
 
2 "

 
"


)2
 


" '
8
 

""
 

"


&"2



"  




%# ** ***73

 
'
 

""

 
2 "
""'
)2
 
 

""

  '

" '


8
'
 


 

 
 

&"2


""

8
 

 

 
"

   

2
 
 




2





 
"
 
"
 '

)

 
 

  

01
  
  

 

 
 2'

   
 
 

  

"



 3 
"
 
 
"  "

 
)

2
2

  

*% *= %*%# + 
 



"
'
 








 
'

"
 



""'
"
  

1

 


 "

%*%# 
)
"
 
 "


" 
2 



 
>2 "

 "



 
'

>

 
8
'



""

  '

 

 
"

2
'

&"2


"
 '



'
 
"
  
 
"" 
 




 

 

  
)


 "





 "
" "


 
'
 "

 

  
 
'



""
2
8
'
 


 

'
  

 
 

&"2

"" 
'

?"

  

 



: 
>

'


  
>



'
 "
   

 
 

 


""2 # 1
2""

" 


 
 

:


  
 







?"
? 
 
"
"

  

2
 
  5.

It is argued by learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner who while fully knowing that he had already executed an agreement in favour of one Balwinder Singh and even after receiving earnest money from the said Balwinder Singh entered into an agreement to the sell the same property in favour of the complainant and also received an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- as earnest money. His intention was dishonest since the very beginning. The dispute between the parties cannot be stated to be of civil nature alone. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter.   


 
 



 


""2 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.

The petitioner is alleged to have entered into an agreement to sell his property in favour of the complainant in April, 2024 and qua the same property, he is alleged to have executed another agreement in favour of family of Balwinder Singh in the month of March, 2024. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, in my considered opinion, his custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of conducting proper and thorough investigation in the matter. Moreso, no such exceptional or extra ordinary 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 not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

8.

1
 2
" 
 
 

   ""


 


8 



 
 

 
 9.


 







"

'


 
 











5

*
 6




( )
*+ ,-./