Jaswinder Singh Alias Jassi vs State Of Punjab

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jaswinder Singh Alias Jassi vs State Of Punjab on 19 April, 2024

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

CRM-M No.17918 of 2024 (O&M) -- ::1:: 2024:PHHC:052591

204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.17918 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 19.04.2024

Jaswinder Singh @ Jassie Petitioner

versus

StateofPunjabo ee Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present :-

ke

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Colonel Saroop Singh-complainant in person.

ke

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.18 dated 22.03.2024 under Sections 379 IPC, registered at Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur.

As per the contents of the FIR, it has been alleged as under :-

"Statement of Colonel Saroop Singh son of Chhaju Ram Minhas, resident of Bhol Kalota, Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur, age about 66 years, Mobile Number 98735-96887. It is stated that I am resident of the above said address and have come on pension as a Colonel from Army Department. My land is situated in village Bhol, Police Station Talwara. This land is in joint ownership of me, my brother Randhir Singh Minhas, Commander Jagdev Singh Minhas and late Shri Sukhdev Singh Minhas. Pushpinder Singh alias Jogi, Jaswinder Singh alias Jassi sons of Isher Singh, Kulbhushan Singh, Suneet Singh sons of Waryam Singh and Sudarshan Singh son of late Hoshiar Singh, residents of Bhol Kalota, Police Station Talwara are also common owners in the same land along with we CRM-M No.17918 of 2024 (O&M) _ ::2:: 2024:PHHC:052591 3 four brothers. In accordance with the division made by our elders we all the co-sharers are in possession of our respective share. Case regarding division of the above said land of our all co-sharers is pending in the court of Naib Tehsildar Talwara. In the second week of January 2024, I was out from my home in connection with a work and in my absence Jaswinder Singh alias Jassi son of Isher Singh has cut my trees, from forest Bajur Nali area which is in my possession and in which I have planted about 115 trees, in Jaman area land planted 40 trees, total 155 trees namely Khair, Aamla, Sarih, Keorh, Jaman, Beol and other trees were planted or were naturally grown and I was owing all these trees. I came to know that all these trees have been cut and taken away by someone. Regarding cutting of these trees, I made enquiry at my own level and I came to know that Jaswinder Singh alias Jassi son of late Isher Singh, resident of Bhol Kalota, Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur without informing me has cut and sold the trees to some unknown person. He (Jaswinder Singh) put forward the name of Vinod Kumar son of Kehar Singh, resident of Bhol Kalota, Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur with whom he has close acquaintance. My trees have been cut and sold by Jaswinder Singh only. Till date conversation between us was going on at Panchayat level but could not be concluded. I was going to give intimation to you, you met, proceedings be initiated. Statement heard and is correct. Sd/-

Colonel Saroop Singh."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cutting of trees already stands compounded by the authorities under the Forest Act.

Reliance is being placed upon Annexure P-2 which is a receipt issued under Section 68 IFA 1927 to demonstrate that the petitioner has deposited the compensation for the material recovered leading to compounding of the offence. He submits that the amount was deposited on behalf of Vinod Kumar and not qua the petitioner as the same could not be construed as an admission of guilt qua him. He further submits that the petitioner is POOJA SHARMA 2024.04.24 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.17918 of 2024 (O&M) © ::3:: 2024:PHHC:052591 admittedly one of the co-owners of the land and thus he cannot be held guilty of offence punishable under Section 379 IPC for having cut down the trees from his own land. Reliance is being placed upon judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204.

4 Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant, who is present in person do not dispute that the petitioner is one of the co-owners in the land and the partition proceedings are pending. However, complainant submits that the trees have been cut down from the land which was exclusively within the possession of the complainant and it is the complainant who planted these trees. He further submits that it is highly unbelievable that cutting down of more than 155 trees has been compounded for a meager sum of Rs.39,730/-. Complainant submits that infact there is no delay in reporting the matter. The complainant being away from the scene reported the matter as soon as it came to his knowledge and thus to say the delay is fatal to the case of the complainant is no where stand. Learned counsel for the complainant has produced photographs showing cutting of trees.

5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

6 The allegations against the petitioner are regarding cutting down 155 trees of Khair, Aamla, Sarih, Keorh, Jaman, Beol etc. It is not denied that the trees have indeed been cut. Explanation offered is that the petitioner offered to compound the offence by paying an amount of Rs.39,730/-. In the considered opinion of this Court, the explanation offered has not helped the case of the petitioner in any manner. As if cutting of 155 grown up trees was not sufficient, the explanation appears to POOJA SHARMA 2024.04.24 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.17918 of 2024 (O&M) -- ::4:: 2024:PHHC:052591 be even more scornful. It's an old saying 'man belongs to earth and earth does not belong to man'.

7 As per settled law laid down by Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (3) SCC I the Court while considering prayer for pre-arrest bail has to consider as to whether the accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides, nature of seriousness of the proposed charges, the role attributed to the applicant and the probabilities of securing presence of the applicant during the course of trial and as to whether there is any apprehension that the applicant will tamper with the witnesses or evidence.

8 In view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner and there being no reason to believe that the same are actuated by any malafide, this Court does not find it to be a case for grant of discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

9 Resultantly, the same is dismissed.

10 Needless to say that anything observed herein shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE 19.04.2024 Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable : No POOJA SHARMA 2024.04.24 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.