Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs State Of Punjab on 13 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221
CRM-M-26883-2022
Date of decision: 13.07.2022
OM PARKASH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present : Mr. Bhawesh Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in case
bearing FIR No. 158 dated 02.07.2001 registered under Sections 420,
406, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police
Station Division No.6, now Bhargo Camp, District Jalandhar.
2. The gravamen as culled out from the story of the
prosecution is that on 14.06.2001, Smt. Baksho d/o Atma Ram r/o Buta
Mandi, Jalandhar, moved application addressed to Officer-in-Charge,
Anti Fraud Staff, Jalandhar, that she is resident of above address. Her
son Deepa is lodged in Central Jail, Jalandhar, in case under Section
460 of IPC. They want to engage a lawyer for which they talked to
Mukhtiar Bhatti, who was known to them, Mukhtiar Bhatti had assured
them that he will get the counsel engaged and get her son released on
bail. Mukhtiar Bhatti brought her to Court complex and got engaged
Sh. Ashok Gandhi as counsel. Mukhtiar Bhatti told her to make
1 of 4
CRM-M-26883-2022 - 2-
arrangement of Rs. 50,000/- for getting her son released on bail. She
and her daughter Reena told him that they have no money, then,
Mukhtiar Bhatti told her that he will get arranged money for her on
interest, if they mortgage their house. She brought her father Atma
Ram in whose name the house is and Mukhtiar Bhatti took them to the
house of Channu. After executing the documents, Channu gave them
Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 50,000/- was kept by Mukhtiar Bhatti with him. He
got executed an agreement worth Rs. 1,50,000/-. Thereafter, she met
with the counsel and talked about the bail saying that Mukhtiar Bhatti
has got their house mortgaged for sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1 lac
has been given to her and Rs. 50,000/- has been retained by Mukhtiar
Bhatti for bail. Her counsel told that he has never demanded any
money and asked her why she has taken money on interest. She cannot
pay interest @ 5% and asked her to return the money and get the
documents returned. Thereafter, they met Mukhtiar Bhatti and told him
that they did not need money and to get the documents returned from
Channu after returning the mortgaged amount. They alongwith
Balwant Singh s/o Harnam Singh went to the house of Mukhtiar Bhatti
for getting the documents and returning the money. They returned the
money to Channu, who had torn and burnt the documents and told that
their documents have been destroyed. Her daughter Reena cleverly
took the torn and burnt pieces of the agreement and came to their
house. The accused assured us that they need not to return the money
as their account has been settled. But on 29.05.2001, Channu has sent
notice through his counsel Sh. Mukhtiar Mohd in which he had alleged
that she had taken loan of Rs. 2 lacs after mortgaging the house and
2 of 4
CRM-M-26883-2022 - 3-
asked her to execute the sale deed on or before 11.06.2001. She had
consulted with all the known persons, who have suggested that she had
been cheated. She is a illiterate lady. Accused-Mukhtiar Bhatti,
Channu, Om Parkash and Gulzari Ram have gotten her signatures on
blank papers.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
contends that the petitioner is alleged to be an attesting witness to the
Agreement to Sell and that co-accused of the petitioner namely Gulzari
Ram and Mukhtiar Bhatti were tried by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Jalandhar in Criminal case bearing No. 648/1 of 2006 and have
already been acquitted vide judgment dated 03.02.2010. He contends
that the petitioner was not aware about the proceedings having been
initiated against him and was never served. Eventually, the petitioner
was arrested on 04.02.2022 and a supplementary charge sheet has
already been filed. Being a magisterial trial, it is likely to take a long
time. It is contended that the prosecution had, in the trial against the
said co-accused, examined only one witness namely Balwant Singh and
the said witness had not supported the version of the prosecution and
was thus declared hostile by the trial Court. The other eye witness Atma
Ram was never examined by the prosecution despite availing
numerous opportunities. He further submits that the petitioner has clean
antecedents and is not suspected or convicted in any other case.
4. Per contra, Mr. Karanbir Singh, AAG, Punjab has submitted
that the petitioner had absconded from the proceedings for a period of
16 years and was declared as a proclaimed person. It is however not
disputed that the other co-accused already stand acquitted and that the
3 of 4
CRM-M-26883-2022 - 4-
petitioner being attesting witness to the Agreement to Sell was the
subject matter of the dispute in the said trial as well. He informs that the
supplementary charge sheet has already been filed and charges have
also been framed on 10.05.2022. No witness has been examined so far.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and have gone through the record with their
assistance.
6. Without examining the merits of the instant case and
taking into consideration the circumstances noticed above, the role of
the petitioner as well as the stage of the trial along with custody of
more than 05 months in the present case, I deem it appropriate to
enlarge the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered
to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond
to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner
directly or indirectly.
9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall
decide the case on the basis of available material.
The petition is allowed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
JULY 13, 2022
vishal sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
