Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM-M-54862-2019 (O&M)
Harjinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(2) CRM-M-5957-2020 (O&M)
Surinder Singh @ Shinda ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Date of Decision:- 25.7.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M-54862-2019. .
Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M-5957-2020. .
Mr. Tanvir Joshi, AAG, Punjab.
assisted by ASI Vijay Kumar.
Mr. Bikramjit Aroura, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. This order shall dispose off the above mentioned two petitions filed on
behalf of Harjinder Singh and Surinder Singh @ Shinda seeking grant of
anticipatory bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No. 13 dated
17.10.2019 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at
Police Station NRI, Amritsar City, District Amritsar.
1 of 4
2 CRM-M-54862-2019 (O&M)
CRM-M-5957-2020 (O&M)
2. The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Rachna Kapoor wife of
Amarjit Singh wherein it is alleged that she had purchased land measuring
45 kanals 1 marla at village Burj Deva Singh, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn
Taran from Ram Singh, Davinder Singh and Manjinder Singh. In the month
of March, 2018 when she was in Canada, her husband received a telephone
call from Patwari concerned that out of the total land purchased by them,
land measuring 28 kanals 5 marlas was found to be less. Upon inquiry made
by the complainant, it transpired that the land which had been sold to the
complainant through Attorney Paramjit Singh had infact been sold her on the
basis of a forged Power of Attorney dated 25.8.2011 and 26.8.2011 and that
the original owners, who were residing in Indonesia had never executed any
such Power of Attorney. While the petitioner Harjinder Singh was
Nambardar who had signed on sale-deed, the petitioner Surinder Singh was
nominated as an accused pursuant to a statement made by Harjinder Singh to
the effect that he (Harjinder Singh) had been asked to attest the sale deed by
Surinder Singh.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners
have falsely been implicated in the present case and that they cannot even be
said to be beneficiary in any manner and that it would be Paramjit Singh,
who on the basis of forged Power of Attorney, had sold the property, who is
the real beneficiary. It has further been submitted that the petitioners
otherwise have been on interim bail since the year 2019/2020 and had been
associating with the investigation of the case and since the matter is mainly
based on documentary evidence, they deserve the concession of bail.
2 of 4
3 CRM-M-54862-2019 (O&M)
CRM-M-5957-2020 (O&M)
4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that the
petitioners played a pivotal role in the entire fraud inasmuch as the forged
Power of Attorney had been attested by petitioner Harjinder Singh in
connivance with petitioner Surinder Singh. It has been submitted that while
petitioner Harjinder Singh is Nambardar, the petitioner Surinder Singh is an
ex-Sarpanch and would be knowing about the residents of the locality and
they having attested Power of Attorney in favour of a fraudster were
apparently hands in gloves with the said fraudster Paramjit Singh. The
learned State counsel has, however, informed that pursuant to interim
directions, the petitioners have joined investigation. It has, however, been
submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required.
5. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.
6. It is borne out from evidence collected by police that the forged Power of
Attorney was executed in favour of Paramjit Singh, on the basis of which the
sale deeds in question were executed. It may here, however, be mentioned
that the original owner Harbinder Singh had filed a civil Suit i.e. Civil Suit
No. 75 dated 10.3.2014/28.5.2015 seeking a declaration to the effect that the
plaintiff Harbinder Singh as well as proforma defendants Harvinder Kaur,
Amarjit Singh and Rajinder Kaur were co-sharer in possession of land
measuring 28 kanals 5 marlas and that the sale deed dated 18.5.2012
executed on the basis of two forged Power of Attorneys by Paramjit Singh
were null and void. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree
dated 6.7.2017.
3 of 4
4 CRM-M-54862-2019 (O&M)
CRM-M-5957-2020 (O&M)
7. While petitioner Harjinder Singh is the attesting witness, the petitioner
Surinder Singh, as per the disclosure statement made by Harjinder Singh had
pursuaded Harjinder Singh to attest the sale deed. Though, the allegations
do prima facie point towards the complicity of the petitioners but this Court
finds that it is a case based mainly on documentary evidence and the
petitioners, who have been on interim bail since the last more than 2 years,
have already joined investigation. In these circumstances, this Court is of
the opinion that the instant case is not such where custodial interrogation of
the petitioners would be required.
8. Both the petitions, as such, are accepted and the interim directions issued by
this Court vide order dated 20.12.2019 (in petitioner Harjinder Singh's case)
and 11.2.2020 (in petitioner Surinder Singh's case) are hereby made absolute
subject to the condition that the petitioners shall continue to appear before
the Investigating Officer as and when called upon to do so and shall also
abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
25.7.2022 (Gurvinder Singh Gill)
kamal Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
4 of 4
