Sohan Singh @ Ram Singh vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 20178 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sohan Singh @ Ram Singh vs State Of Haryana on 21 November, 2023

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148294




                                                           2023:PHHC:148294



CRM-M-51574-2023 (O & M)                                                         ::1::


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                      CRM-M-51574-2023 (O & M)
                      Date of decision:21.11.2023


Sohan Singh @ Ram Singh                                       ...... Petitioner
           V/s

State of Haryana                                                 ...Respondent



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:     Mr. Sushil Kumar Verma, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Jasdev Singh Mendiratta, Avocate,
             With Ms. Navreet Dhaliwal, Advocate,
             and Ms. Hanima Grewal, Advocate,
             for the complainant.

                 *****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is

for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.134 dated

05.09.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506 and 120-B IPC registered at

Police Station Jakhal, District Fatehabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Mohan Singh and Binder

Singh filed a complaint with the investigating agency stating that they used

to sell their crops through the firm of Sohan Singh @ Ram Singh (petitioner)

who was a commission agent. Over a significant period of time, a sum of

Rs.1.53 Crores became due to them (complainants). They (complainants)

demanded this amount from Sohan Singh who stated that as he did not have

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148294

2023:PHHC:148294

CRM-M-51574-2023 (O & M) ::2::

the said amount, he was ready and willing to execute a sale deed of 05 acres

of land in their (complainants') favour in lieu of the amount of Rs.1.53

Crores. On the assurance of the petitioner, an agreement was entered into on

23.05.2022 (R-2) between them (complainant party) and Sohan Singh @

Ram Singh (petitioner). The possession of the land measuring 40 kanals was

also handed over to them (complainant party). However, Sohan Singh

refused to executed the sale deed in their (complainant party's) favour and

therefore, a civil suit for specific performance was instituted before the Civil

Court, Tohana. Sohan Singh (petitioner) intentionally did not appear before

the Court and a status quo order was passed against him. Thereafter, a

Panchayat took place in which Sohan Singh undertook to execute the sale

deed in question. In pursuant to the undertaking, they (complainant party)

purchased stamp papers of Rs.8,15,000/- on 15.06.2023 and Sohan Singh

presented himself before the Sub Registrar, Kullan, Tehsil Tohana. However

to their (complainant party's) surprise, it transpired that the land in question

had been agreed to be sold by Sohan Singh (petitioner) to Jarnail Singh and

Gamdur Singh (co-accused) who had instituted a civil suit against them

(complainant party) and Sohan Singh (petitioner) wherein on the statement

of Sohan Singh, a status quo order had been passed against Sohan Singh

(petitioner) and them (complainant party). On an enquiry being made, they

(complainant party) came to know that with a view to cheat them

(complainants), he (petitioner-Sohan Singh) in conspiracy with his

co-accused Jarnail Singh and Gamdur Singh to grab the amount of Rs.1.53

Crores, had got prepared an agreement to sell dated 06.05.2022 (R-1) and he

(Sohan Singh-petitioner) by appearing in the case filed by Jarnail Singh and

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148294

2023:PHHC:148294

CRM-M-51574-2023 (O & M) ::3::

another had deposed in favour of the plaintiffs therein facilitating the passing

of a status quo order. This fact had been concealed from the Panchayat

when the same was convened. Thus, apparently, on the one hand, an

agreement to sell had been executed in their (complainant party's) favour on

23.05.2022 whereas on the other hand, the petitioner had got filed a civil suit

for permanent injunction based on a forged and fabricated agreement dated

06.05.2022 purportedly in favour of Jarnail Singh and Gamdur Singh and

had suffered a statement in their (co-accused Jarnail Singh and Gamdur

Singh's) favour so that the sale deed could not be executed in their

(complainant party's) favour.

Based on the aforementioned facts, the instant FIR came to be

registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of

the FIR would reveal that the petitioner is innocent and had been falsely

implicated. There were some transactions between the complainants and the

petitioner with regard to sale and purchase of crops. Multiple civil suits

were pending regarding the land in question. The case was based entirely on

documentary evidence which was already on record in the said civil suits.

The petitioner had joined investigation and had co-operated with the same.

Therefore, he was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned counsel for the State alongwith the learned counsel

for the complainants, however, contend that the petitioner had clearly

committed the offence in question. A sum of Rs.1.53 Crores was due to the

complainants. As the petitioner stated that he did not have the money, he

was ready and willing to execute the sale deed with respect to 05 acres of

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148294

2023:PHHC:148294

CRM-M-51574-2023 (O & M) ::4::

land and an agreement to sell was entered into on 23.05.2022 but the sale

deed was not executed. The complaints were forced to institute a civil suit

for specific performance in which the petitioner did not put in appearance

and a status quo order was passed. On the other hand, by forging and

fabricating an ante-dated agreement to sell dated 06.05.2022 in favour of

Jarnail Singh and Gamdur Singh, the petitioner got them to file civil suit for

injunction against the complainants and himself (petitioner), appeared in the

Court and suffered a statement in their (Jarnail Singh and Gamdur Singh's)

favour. This was done so as to avoid execution of the sale deed in favour of

the complaints. The factum of an earlier agreement to sell dated 06.05.2022

being in existence was not disclosed to the Panchayat or to the complainant

party. Thus, it was established beyond doubt that the offence in question had

been committed. Merely because civil proceedings had been initiated and

the case was based on documentary evidence did not entitle the petitioner to

the grant of anticipatory bail once an offence was prima facie made out.

They, therefore, contend that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession

as prayed for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sumitha Pradeep

Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Livelaw (SC) 870' has held that merely

because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a

ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court

hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case

against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148294

2023:PHHC:148294

CRM-M-51574-2023 (O & M) ::5::

"It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.

Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148294

2023:PHHC:148294

CRM-M-51574-2023 (O & M) ::6::

should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."

7. As has been enumerated hereinabove, on account of his

inability to pay a sum of Rs.1.53 Crores to the complainants, the petitioner

entered into an agreement to sell dated 23.05.2022 for the said amount and

handed over the possession to the complainants. In order to avoid execution

of the sale deed, he entered into ante-dated agreement to sell dated

06.05.2022 with Jarnail Singh and Gamdur Singh and got them to file a civil

suit in which he suffered a statement in their (Jarnail Singh and Gamdur

Singh's) favour. Quite to the contrary, in the civil suit instituted by the

complainants, the petitioner has chosen not to appear. Thus, it is prima facie

established that the offence in question has been committed by the petitioner

in connivance with his co-accused Jarnail Singh and Gamdur Singh. Merely

because the petitioner has joined the investigation and the case is based on

documentary evidence are no grounds to grant the concession of anticipatory

bail to the petitioner, moreso, when a prima facie offence is made out.

Therefore, to take the investigation to its logical conclusion, the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required.

8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and

therefore, the same stands dismissed.

                                6 of 7

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148294




                                                          2023:PHHC:148294



CRM-M-51574-2023 (O & M)                                                        ::7::

9. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this

order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial

Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence lead

before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.

                                               ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
                                                      JUDGE
November 21, 2023
sukhpreet
                Whether speaking/reasoned             : Yes/No
                   Whether reportable                 : Yes/No




                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148294

                               7 of 7