The single judge bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Surinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab dismissed the petition for cancellation of bail as the complainant was being threatened to compromise the matter, but in the absence of any cogent evidence to substantiate such allegations, no case for grant of cancellation of bail is made out.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was lodged at the instance of Arjan Singh Parwana (NRI), who alleges that a fraud has been committed in respect of his land measuring 9 kanals 12 marlas situated in District Jalandhar, wherein a house and 26 shops have been constructed, known as “Parwana Palace” Market.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has contended that they have been wrongfully accused in this case and that the Sale Certificate serves as the basis for their property rights. They also claim that if there is any inaccurate information about any of the petitioners' shares or rights in the revenue record, it may be because an oversight occurred when the information was being recorded. It has been argued that the case, at best, has the characteristics of a civil dispute and that the current FIR constitutes an abuse of the legal process because the Civil Court is already involved. As a result, the petitioners should be granted bail.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has contended that after a thorough investigation, it was discovered that the accused had engaged in fabrication and forgery as well as obtaining approval for fake mutations in order to deny the complainant of his land. Referring to the SDM's report from Jalandhar, the learned State attorney claimed that the SDM had determined that the accused had engaged in fraud, had obtained approval for numerous changes, had utilised forgeries, and had even used some documents twice. Thus, it has been argued, the petitioners do not merit the grant of bail.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has also pressed upon his petition for cancellation of bail granted to accused Vishal Kakkar on the ground that he has been misusing the concession of bail and has been threatening the complainant to compromise the matter.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that it is evident that all the accused including the petitioners executed a well orchestrated conspiracy to defraud the complainant and to usurp the property on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, fraudulent transactions and fraudulent entries in revenue records. The foundation of case of accused is based on sale certificate, stated to be for 2K – 9M, which is a non-existent document, which has never seen light of the day. The plea of being the bonafide purchaser is certainly not available to Surinder Kaur whose husband was tenant of Parwana family, in a shop which she purchased. Nor such plea is available to Kamlesh Kakkar, Nidhi Sikka and Yuvraj Sikka as their transactions are sham transactions without consideration. Harjot Kaur, Jimmy Maan and Haldy Maan had executed power of attorney of a property which already stood disposed of. Harjot Kaur, Jimmy Maan and Haldy Maan had even been declared proclaimed offenders. In these circumstances, no special case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of either of the petitioners. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioners merits dismissal and is declined. However, having regard to the fact that four of the petitioners are ladies including Kamlesh Kakkar, who is 75 years old and the case is mainly based on documentary evidence, most of which has already been collected by the police, it is directed that in case the petitioners surrender before the trial court within two weeks from today and move an application for grant of regular bail, the trial Court shall dispose of the same expeditiously in the shortest possible time and in any case not later than 3 days from filing of such applications. Needless to mention, the trial Court, while deciding such applications shall have due regard to the aforesaid special circumstances including the age of the ladies. As far as the petition filed by complainant Arjan Singh Parwana for cancellation of regular bail granted to Vishal Kakkar is concerned, though the learned counsel representing the complainant has submitted that Vishal Kakkar is threatening the complainant to compromise the matter, but in the absence of any cogent evidence to substantiate such allegations, no case for grant of cancellation of bail is made out. The petition for cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed.
CASE NAME- Surinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab
CITATION- CRM-M-10947-2019 (O&M)
CORUM- Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill
DATE- 21.10.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
