Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh Mand vs State Of Punjab on 8 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050089
2024:PHHC:050089
CRM-M-13020-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(103)
CRM-M-13020-2024
Date of Decision:-08.04.2024
Manjit Singh Mand
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. Gagandeep Singh and
Mr. Tarun Seth, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate for the complainant.
****
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.008 dated
11.02.2024, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police
Station NRI, District Ludhiana Police Commissionerate.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no role
attributed to the petitioner in this FIR and he has only been nominated on
the ground that he was aware that the GPA executed by the complainant in
favour of one Jasbir Singh was cancelled orally and after that a civil suit
was also filed in which it was categorically stated that the GPA stands
cancelled. Thereafter, Jasbir Singh had executed a GPA in favour of his
son Gagangian Deep Singh, who executed four sale deeds on the strength of
the said GPA.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050089
2024:PHHC:050089
CRM-M-13020-2024
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for
the complainant has submitted that the correct position is that there is one
more FIR No.10 dated 06.03.2024 in which the petitioner was given the
GPA by the said Jasbir Singh, who in furtherance, transferred the land in
favour of his daughter-in-law and, the present petitioner and his son along
with Jasbir Singh are accused in both the FIRs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the
agreement was executed between the complainant and the petitioner, who
was also holding his GPA at one point of time to prepare the cases in which
he was entitled to 500 sq.yard. property of the complainant. Although the
said agreement is not on record of this file but he further submits that out of
the said 500 sq.yard., he has sold 151.66 sq.yard, to one Geeta Devi.
5. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant submits that the act and conduct of the petitioner clearly
demonstrates the intention to cheat from the very beginning on the ground
that Manjit Singh was always silent right from 2009 that the complainant
has already cancelled the GPA in favour of Jasbir Singh from whom he got
the GPA in 2021. Secondly, the GPA has been exercised for execution of
the sale in favour of Geeta Devi and the present petitioner along with the
son's Gagangian Deep Singh and Jasbir Singh have executed three more
sale deeds and the allegation is that the petitioner is a part of the criminal
conspiracy to usurp the property of the complainant. Learned State counsel
further submits that the notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C. was issued to the
petitioner which has also not been responded and there is no violation of
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050089
2024:PHHC:050089
CRM-M-13020-2024
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar
vs State Of Bihar & Anr.(2014) 8 SCC 273..
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and a considering the fact
that the petitioner played an active role in the offence and hence his
custodial interrogation would be much required. More so, in light of the
fact that the main accused is none other than his son, who is also
absconding from the process of law. Hence, I do not find any ground to
grant extraordinary concession to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(ALOK JAIN)
JUDGE
April 08, 2024
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
