Nanakjee Arora Alias Nanakjit v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-24.10.2024 Nanakjeet Arora @ Nanakjit ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate with Mr. Prikshit Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Luhani, Advocate and Ms. Rimjhim Mahajan, Advocate for the complainant. ***** FIR No.

Dated Police Station Section/s 18.6.2024 Cantonment, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 511, 120-B of Indian Penal Code GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of the aforementioned FIR.

2.

The allegations, in nutshell, are that the accused had executed forged lease deeds for the purpose of tranferring possessory rights in respect of property of 'Akhada Nirvansar'.

( 2 ) 3.

Short reply by way of affidavit of Shri Shivdarshan Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, West, Amritsar City has been filed by learned State counsel, which is taken on record.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is being involved in the present case on the ground that he had affixed his signatures in the capacity of a witness on the lease deeds/affidavit executed by Bharat Kumar i.e. lease deed dated 15.6.2021 (Annexure P-2), lease deed dated 23.3.2001 (Annexure P-3) and affidavit dated 18.9.2023 (Annexure P-4). It has been submitted that since the entire case is based on documentary evidence, his further detenion, in any case, will not serve any useful purpose. 5.

Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender having been involved in 8 other cases. It has further been submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to be a mere witness only to the agreement, but is closely related to Bharat Kumar being his paternal uncle and, as such, it is evident that he had actively connived and conspired with the co-accused for the purpose of execution of the fraud in question. Learned State counsel, however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 2 months.

6.

This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 7.

Without commenting anything as regards merits of the case, but bearing in mind the fact that it is a case based mainly on documentary evidence and the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 2 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as conclusion of

( 3 ) trial is likely to consume time. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

24.10.2024 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) Pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No