Kuldeep 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 3
5 


 


 


'6
" 
+
 
 
 

 
 

4  
"
 
2 
   

*& *% '*'%

 



''

'7 ***83

" 
2 


2
9
2 
 

  


:7 ** ***83 2

 

;

 
3
 

  

 + ** ***83
2
 



$ 


2
 


9


*'

*< '*'%
$ 
  
2
 
 

   3


 (
8"
2 
2
 




+ ** ***83
(
  
$ 
3
 



9 
 
  




 


 9

 
 
"




 ;

(
 

 


 
9

 
1 
  
 

"

2
 
3 5 



(
9

 


 
 
 
  
2 


 


 

  


'% ** ***83
  
 (




 
2 
(
"

2

 
 



(

(

9
(
 
3

 

 
 
 
2 



 

9 

 

 
 


2
 
 
 
3

 

2 
  


   
(

"

 
 
 
      

01






  
 
  2( 



 
   

 


  

 

3
 

 
 
   
  5

"
 
2

2
  



*'

*= '*'% + 1

 
(
 
 

 
 

 
(
 


>
2


2  

 
 


*& *% '*'%
9

 

 

 
(

5

)
 (


 


(

$ 
 
 (



$ 

2 
 
 


 *6 *+ '*'%


9
(
3
5 

(
 
  

  
  

 


2




$    

(

 



> 
 


 ; 
)
 (






$


 



 


9 
  

3
  4.

Status report has been filed by the respondent-State, as per which, the accused Japinder Singh had entered into an agreement to sell with one Balwinder Singh on 06.03.2024. He had received earnest money to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- from the said Balwinder Singh but did not execute sale deed on the date fixed though this date was extended. During the subsistence of that agreement, the co-accused Japinder entered into an agreement to sell the same property with the complainant with dishonest intention and received a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/-. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had played a role as a broker to finalize the deal between the co-accused and complainant and was very much present at the time of payment. The petitioner was also the marginal witness to the previous agreement dated 06.03.

2024 executed in favour of Balwinder Singh. Meaning thereby that he very well knew the factum of execution of earlier agreement and with an intention to cheat the complainant had still mediated in execution of another agreement qua the same property in favour of the complainant obviously with a view to dupe the complainant of huge amount of money. It is also submitted that he had received a sum of Rs.

 3,00,000/- from the complainant as a broker. He had complete knowledge of agreement of sell executed in favour of Balwinder Singh. No extra ordinary or sparing circumstance has even otherwise been made out for the purpose of extending benefit of bail to the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. $

  



 


2

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.

As per the allegations, the co-accused-Japinder had entered into an agreement to sell his property in favour of the complainant through the intervention of the present petitioner who is a broker by profession. This agreement was executed as on 08.04.2024. The petitioner had received cash amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant. No sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant and it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the co-accused Japinder Singh had already entered into an agreement to sell the same property in favour of one Balwinder Singh and had also received earnest money from him. The petitioner is alleged to be a marginal witness of the said agreement and this fact has not even controverted by him in his petition so filed by him. It is therefore, apparent that the petitioner who is a broker, at the time of execution of agreement of sale in favour of the co-accused very well knew the about the fact that another agreement qua sale of the same property had already been executed by the co-accused. The allegations in the FIR prima facie make out a case of

 active involvement and complicity of the petitioner with the co-accused in duping the complainant for a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively with dishonest intention. Though it is asserted that the dispute is civil in nature, however, keeping in view the fact that there is prima facie case on record to show that the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused had intentionally induced the complainant to enter into an agreement with the co-accused and pay earnest money to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/- to him and cash amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough investigation. Moreso, 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 not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

8.

1
 2
  
 
 

  


 


9 

 
 
 

 
 9.

 
 

   

  


  


 (

 












6 *
7


 

( )
*+ ,-./