Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 November, 2022
CRM-M-4316-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4316-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.11.2022
Bhag Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Present: - Ms. Molly A. Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') for
grant of regular bail in case FIR No.267 dated 16.12.2014 registered
under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station
Sohana, District Mohali.
The above-said FIR was registered on the complaint dated
27.02.2014 received from the office of Land Acquisition Collector, SAS
Nagar, on the allegations that some unknown person impersonating
himself as Bhag Singh S/o Teja Singh (petitioner) got released the
compensation amount of Rs. 13,19,877/- vide cheque No. 070788 dated
16.12.20211, qua land measuring 11.75 marlas owned by Bhag Singh-
petitioner. However, as per report dated 06.11.2013, obtained from
Account Branch of the office of complainant, the aforesaid cheque was
1 of 4
CRM-M-4316-2022 (O&M) -2-
received by the petitioner-Bhag Singh, for acquisition of his land. Before
releasing compensation to present petitioner, he was got identified from
Karamjit Singh, the then Panch of village Lakhnaur and his thumb
impressions were obtained on the payment register. Subsequently, the
petitioner had filed two complaints dated 28.10.2013 and 17.12.2013,
with the allegations that he had not received any compensation for his
land acquired and the same was obtained by some unknown person. The
matter was inquired by the complainant-Land Acquisition Collector and it
was revealed that Rupinder Singh, Lambardar had attested the payment
form of the petitioner on his asking on 15.11.2011, however, Karamjit
Singh, Panch had not signed the payment register on 16.12.2011
maintained by PUDA. From the preliminary enquiry it reveals that some
unknown person had obtained the aforesaid compensation amount
through the aforesaid cheque from PUDA officials, on the basis of forged
and fabricated documents. During the course of inquiry, it had come on
the record that the aforesaid cheque No. 070788 dated 16.12.2011 was
got encashed by one Surmukh Singh resident of village Siau, who got
recorded his statement wherein he stated that the aforesaid cheque had
been given to him by Davinder Kaur, who is the niece of petitioner-Bhag
Singh, towards return of earlier loan amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. During
further investigation, it had come on record that the petitioner himself had
permitted the husband of his niece to impersonate in his place and
withdraw the amount of Rs.13,19,877/- vide cheque No. 070788 dated
16.12.2011 from the HDFC Bank, Mohali and has later on moved a
complaint that some unknown person has withdrawn the afore-said
2 of 4
CRM-M-4316-2022 (O&M) -3-
amount, by impersonating him despite the fact that the same was to be
paid to him by the PUDA/GMADA. Moreover, the petitioner also
refused recognize and identify the photograph of his son-in-law (husband
of his niece) affixed on the opening form for opening the account through
which the aforesaid amount of compensation was withdrawn which show
the complicity of petitioner in the alleged withdrawal of Rs.13,19,877/-
vide cheque No. 070788 dated 16.11.2011, by way of cheating.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further
submits that in fact petitioner is the complainant in the instant case and he
has wrongly been nominated by the local police on the basis of false and
concocted story. Land of the petitioner situated in village Berampur was
acquired by GMADA but GMADA had neither released any amount nor
issue the LOI against the aforesaid acquisition. With regard to
controversy involved in the present case, the petitioner had already filed a
civil suit titled 'Bhag Singh Vs. GMADA', which was decided in favour
of the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure
P-2). The petitioner is in custody since more than one year.The trial is
likely to take long time. No useful purpose will be served by further
detention of the petitioner in custody. Therefore, the petitioner may be
released on regular bail.
On the other hand learned State counsel has submitted that
the petitioner himself had permitted the husband of his niece to
impersonated in his place and withdraw the amount of Rs.13,19,877/-
vide cheque No. 070788 dated 16.12.2011 from the HDFC Bank, Mohali
3 of 4
CRM-M-4316-2022 (O&M) -4-
by way of cheating. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve
concession of regular bail and the present petition may be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper-book.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
custody period of the petitioner and also the fact that the trial likely to
take long time but without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of
the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular
bail.
The petitioner-Bhag Singh is ordered to be released on
regular bail subject to furnishing his bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction
of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
November 21, 2022 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
