Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhpreet Singh Sandhu vs State Of Punjab on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044939
2024:PHHC:044939
CRM-M-13387-2024 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(104) CRM-M-13387-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-03.04.2024
Sukhpreet Singh Sandhu
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. Vivek Singla, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate for the complainant.
****
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
CRM-12892-2024
The present application is for placing on record additional
affidavit of the applicant-petitioner.
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Annexures P-3 and P-4 are taken on record.
CRM-M-13387-2024
1. The present petitioner has been filed under section 438 Cr.P.C.
praying for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.223
dated 19.12.2023, registered under Sections 341, 323, 379-B, 365, 511,
148, 149 of IPC, at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner after taking through the FIR
has submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner
except for bald averments about his act in a civil suit. He further submits
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044939
2024:PHHC:044939
CRM-M-13387-2024 (O&M)
that there is no injury attributed to the petitioner and more so, three persons
named in the said FIR have already been exonerated by the authorities
during investigation, three other co-accused have been granted the
concession of regular bail and one co-accused has been granted the
concession of anticipatory bail. He further submits that till date the
complainant has not filed any civil suit to raise his claimqua the dispute in
question. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is a case
of antagonism between two families and, therefore, time and again
complaints and FIRs have been lodged against each other's family
members. Apart from that, the petitioner has clean antecedents and he is
not involved in any other offence.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel
for the complainant submits that, in fact it is act and conduct of the
petitioner herein, which has led to the entire dispute. It is submitted that the
property in question was purchased by the complainant initially in
partnership with one Darshan Singh Sohal, though there was no written
agreement in his favour. However, subsequent thereto, Darshan Singh
Sohal executed a power of attorney in favour of his son Harpinder Singh,
who entered into an agreement to sell qua the same property on 14.09.2017
with complainant. It is also submitted that, in fact, the civil suit filed by
Darshan Singh Sohal was decreed and Darshan Singh Sohal subsequently
executed a power of attorney in favour of the present petitioner, who after
taking the money from the judgment debtors withdrew the execution
petition but did not give the amount received by him to the beneficial
owner. In the backdrop of the said dispute which was going on since
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044939
2024:PHHC:044939
CRM-M-13387-2024 (O&M)
19.10.2017, the alleged offence took place, in which petitioner is the main
conspirator and snatched the chain of the complainant and, hence has
played a pivotal role in the commission of offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that the
complainant has not enforced his rights on the basis of the alleged
agreement to sell between Harpinder Singh and him and now frivolous
litigations are being lodged against the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
perused the paper book. A perusal of Annexures P-3 and P-4 clearly
demonstrates that the execution petition was filed for execution of decree
dated 04.08.2017 in favour of Darshan Singh Sohal and the same was filed
by the present petitioner on 21.07.2018 i.e. after the agreement to sell was
executed qua the same land by Harpinder Singh holding power of attorney
of Darshan Singh Sohal. However, as per annexure P-4, the execution
petition was dismissed as withdrawn against judgment debtors No.2 to 6
vide order dated 06.07.2022 and thereafter, the present incident took place
on 19.12.2023. The petitioner is the beneficiary and has apparently played
a pivotal role in the commission of the said offence and his custodial
interrogation would be much required for bringing the truth out.
6. As regards the parity claimed by the petitioner, a perusal of the
FIR demonstrate that the allegation upon the petitioner, that he on asking of
one Darshan Singh Sohal, withdrew the case(execution petition) and
received huge amounts and, therefore, the petitioner played a crucial role in
the commission of offence, and was the main reason and the person whose
act and conduct led to the commission of that offence and, hence, the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044939
2024:PHHC:044939
CRM-M-13387-2024 (O&M)
petitioner cannot be considered to be at parity with other co-accused, since
he is the main conspirator.
7. In light of the above, the petitioner has not been able to carve
out a case for the grant of extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
According the present petition stands dismissed.
(ALOK JAIN)
April 03, 2024 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
