Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053144
2024:PHHC:053144
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M) ::1::
(267)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M)
Date of decision:19.04.2024
Kuldeep Singh ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Priyanshu Kamra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the complainant.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
CRM-15451-2024
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C for placing on record
certain documents (Annexures P-4 to P-7) is allowed as prayed for subject to
all just exceptions. The same are taken on record.
This application stands disposed of.
CRM-15452-2024
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for impleading
Sandeep Kaur-complainant as respondent No.2 in the array of the parties.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed. The complainant-Sandeep Kaur is impleaded as respondent No.2
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053144
2024:PHHC:053144
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M) ::2::
in the array of the parties. The amended memo of parties filed alongwith the
application is taken on record.
This application stands disposed of.
CRM-M-7494-2024
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.87 dated
12.10.2022 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC
registered at Police Station Khuni Khera, District Fazilka.
2. The present FIR came to be registered on the basis of various
enquiries conducted on an application being moved by the complainant-
Sandeep Kaur widow of Gaganpreet Singh. The original
complaint/application reads as under:-
"To Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda <ssp.btd.po-
lice.punjab.govt.in Co: sandeepKaur [email protected] Respec-
ted sir, Thanks for your emall. Your email has been acknow-
ledge by Sr. 2219300-F, 75080-99403 Email address ssp.btd
[email protected] for further necessary action on your
complaint No. 9615/DGP/21 Dated: 22.12.2021 Grievance
Cell. o/o DGP Punjab. From DGP, Punjab <DGP punjab po-
[email protected] to Punjab Police dop.complaint.po-
[email protected]. in. Sent: Wednesday. September 15, 2021,
12:12:50 AM. Subject: Fwd: Application for necessary action
regarding the forged will of Balkar Singh. From: sandeep-
[email protected] To DGP Punjab dop.complaint.po-
[email protected], Sent Saturday, August. 7/2021 9:42:49
PM. Subject: Application for taking necessary action regarding
the forged will of Balkar Singh. Respected sir, My name is
Sandeep Kaur widow of late Senior Sepoy Gaganpreet Singh
who was expired on 08.02.2021. At the time of death, he was
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053144
2024:PHHC:053144
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M) ::3::
posted at Abohar District Fazilka. After the death of my in-laws
family with conspiracy had prepared a forged will of my
Father-in-law who died on 23.01.2021. I pray to take necessary
action against the named persons. I wish that the police
department will stand with me in this tough time. Further I as-
sure that the contents of the application attached are true.
Forged will has already been challenged by me before the of-
fice of Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fazilka. With
folded hands from Sandeep Kaur and Samarpreet Singh son of
Gaganpreet Singh. 303905/W 12.12.2021. Office of Senior
Superintendent of Police Bathinda. No 453-Dal-21 Dated
29.12.2021. DGP City-1 "to examine and ensure justice as per
law and report." Sd/- Senior Superintendent of Police,
Bathinda. Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, City
Bathinda: Police Department, District Bathinda NO. 3 1652/5E
dated 04.08.2022. 1) Complaint No. 453 DGP /2021 dated
29.12.2021. 2. Complaint by: Sandeep Kaur widow of
Ggandeep Singh Randhawa resident of House NO. 23656 street
No. 1, Harbans Nagar, Bathinda, 3) Complaint against: 1)
Pawandeep Singh son of Balkar Singh, 2) Rajdeep Kaur wife of
Pawandeep Singh, 3) Dharampal Singh son of Kumar Singh, 4)
Balwant Rai Numberdar son of Ram Dass, 5) Daljit Singh son
of Surain Singh, 6) Kulwant Kaur wife of late Balkar Singh
residents of Bakainwala. District Fazilka, 7) Kuldeep Singh son
of Harcharan Singh 8) Jaswinder Kaur wife of Kuldeep Singh
resident of 23-MC Company near Hanuman Mandir Fazilka. 4)
If any case, then number of case: No, 5) which points have been
raised in the complaint: After the death of Balkar Singh Father-
in-law of complainant, tried to defeat his right by preparing a
forged Will. 6) Statements of complainant party: 1) Sandeep
Kaur widow of Gaganpreet Singh Randhawa resident of 1)
Harbans Naga, Bathinda, 2)Harpreet Singh Randhawa son of
Dharmal Singh resident of street No. 1, Harbans Nagar,
Bathinda. With regard to the inquiry of complaint, complainant
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053144
2024:PHHC:053144
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M) ::4::
Sandeep Kaur has got her statement recorded that I am resid-
ent of above noted address. My marriage was solemnized to
Gaganpreet Singh son of Balkar Singh resident of village
Bakainwala, Tehsil and District Fazilka in the year 2014 and I
have one son namely Samapreet Singh Randhawa out of this
wedlock, whose age is 4 years. My husband was serving in Pun-
jab Police, who was posted at Abohar, his has Belt No. 444/
Fazilka and my husband was died on 08.02.2021. My Father-
in-law Balkar Singh was died on 23.01.2021. There was land
measuring 6 Acres 15 Marlas in the name of my husband and
after his death, the said land came to the share of me and my
son Samarpreet Singh Randhawa and my Mother-in-law
Kulwant Kaur in equal shares. My Father-in-law late Sh.
Balkar Singh was having land measuring 2 Acres and prior to
death my Father-in-law had not executed any Will regarding
said land, After the death of my husband, I came back to my
parental house to spend some days with my mother at Bathinda
because at the time I needed the support of my mother. After the
death of my husband, my Brother-in-Law (Jeth) Pawandeep
Singh, Mother-in-law Kulwant Kaur and Jethani Rajdeep Kaur
have started harassing me but I don't want to make sour my
relations with them, due to which, on 31.03.2021 | along with
my mother and brother Harpreet Singh Kahlon went to village
Bakaunwala to meet my Mother-in-law and to meet her with
her grandson where Kuldeep Singh brother of my Father-in-
law and his wife Jaswinder Kaur also came. Pawandeep Singh,
Kuldeep Singh, Jaswinder Kaur and Rajdeep Kaur have
pressurized me to take my land from me and we came back
from there to Bathinda while weeping. Thereafter on
13.04.2021,1 along with my mother and brother again went to
meet my Mother-in-law at village Bakainwala and arrived there
at about 9/10 AM where my Mother-in-law has informed that
the land of late Balkar Singh has been transferred to my name
but I told her that mother the land of Gaganpreet Singh is
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053144
2024:PHHC:053144
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M) ::5::
transferred in your name but not the land of father. ON hearing
it, Pawandeep Singh has made phone call Kuldeep Singh and
called him there, who along with his wife Jaswinder Kaur came
there from Fazilka and started quarreling to us that the land of
Gaganpreet Singh came in your share, said land also transfer
our name, we all sat in our room and when I went to kitchen to
take water then I was hearing their gossip that keep Sandeep
Kaur here with love and later on we will remove her. Thereafter
I informed about it to my brother and we immediately came
back from there. Thereafter I never went there. Later on I came
to know that on 02.04.2021 they have made forged Will of late
Sh. Balkar Singh and they have given it to Patwari for transfer
of his land in their name. The mutation of said land has been
transferred in the name of my Mother-in- law Kulwant Kaur.
My brother has got the copy of said Will then we came to know
that Dharampal Singh and Balwant Rai have appended their
signatures as witness on the said Will and Pawadeep Singh has
appended false signature of my Father-in-law Balkar Singn.
This Will is written by Daljeet Singh. My brother has made call
to Dharampal Singh, Balwant Rai and Daljit Singh then they all
have admitted that this Will is fake. I came to know from this
forged Will that Pawandeep Singh and Kuldeep Singh have
talked to each other on 01.04.2021 to prepare this forged Will.
On 02.04.2021, Pawandeep Singh has made phone call to
Dharampal and Balwant Rai and called them. Dharampal
Singh and Daljeet Singh reached at the house of Pawandeep
Singh and talked about it to Kuldeep Singh who made this con-
spiracy. It is also pertinent to mention here that Pawandeep
Singh had made phone calls from mobile No. 94170-28313 of
my Father-in-law late Sh. Balkar Singh to these witnesses
because after his death, Pawandeep Singh was using said num-
ber. They have made this false Will and also defeated the right
ot me and my son. Legal Action be taken against them and jus-
tice be provided to me. Kuldeep Singh is an retired Sub
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053144
2024:PHHC:053144
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M) ::6::
Inspector and Jaswinder Kaur is PA to Deputy Commissioner,
Fazilka, who misused their post. Therefore we have apprehen-
sion to our Vlife and liberty and after the death of my husband
Jaswinder Kaur and Kuldeep Singh have made interruption in
getting the claim of my husband. Therefore legal action be
taken against them. It is also pertinent to mention here that the
accused have presented said forged Will in the Tehsil Fazilka,
where I raised objections that this is fake Will and thereafter the
Hon'ble Tehsildar has transferred the said case to Hon'ble Sub
Divisional Magistrate. The said case is No. 64/AC Ist and this
case dismissed on 27.07.2021 by the court of Sh. Keshav Goel,
PCS, Sub Divisional Magistrate -cum- Assistant Collector, ist
Grade, Fazilka and same has been decided in my favour. The
detail of phone calls made by my brother to the witnesses is as
follows: the recording of which is made by my brother in his
mobile phone, in which the witnesses have admitted their
offence of making, forged. Will. 1) Dated 28.06.2021 8.19 PM
my brother Harpreet Singh has made phone call from his mo-
bile NO. 9463869360 to mobile No. 94639-35282 of Dharam-
pal Singh, the duration of this call was 32 Minutes 45 Seconds
and call recording from 8.8 PM to 9.14 PM of dated 03.07.2021
is enclosed herewith. 2. ON 30.6.2021 at 7.55 PM, my brother
Harpreet Singh has made phone call from his mobile No.
94638- 069360 to mobile No.9440-07914 of Balwant Rai, the
call recording of 46 Minutes 22 Seconds is enclosed herewith.
3) On 01.07.2021 at 7.19 PM and 731 PM, my brother
Harpreet Singh has made phone call from his mobile No.
94638-069360 to mobile No. 94638-73800 of Daljeet Singh, the
call recording of 11 minutes 37 Seconds and 5 Minutes 26 Sec-
onds is enclosed herewith. The above said persons have made
fake Will of my Father-in-law late Sh. Balkar Singh in con-
nivance to each other in favour of my Mother-in-law Kulwant
Singh, therefore legal action be taken against above said
accused persons."
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053144
2024:PHHC:053144
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M) ::7::
3. The above-noted complaint of Sandeep Kaur was thoroughly
enquired into through Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-1, Bathinda
and the allegations were found to be correct. After obtaining legal opinion
from the Deputy District Attorney Legal, Bathinda, as per the instructions of
Additional Director General of Police, Public Grievances Division Punjab,
Chandigarh, FIR No.87 dated 12.10.2022 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Khui Khera, came to be
registered against Pawandeep Singh, Dharampal Singh, Kuldeep Singh
(petitioner), Daljeet Singh, Kulwant Kaur and Balwant Singh.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The dispute relat-
ing to forgery of the Will is entirely civil in nature. At one stage, a compro-
mise had been entered into and it was the complainant who had backed out
from the same. As the petitioner was ready and willing to join the investiga-
tion, he was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, moreso, when a
co-accused/Balwant Rai had been granted the similar concession.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand,
contends that the petitioner being the brother of the deceased-Balkar Singh
and a retired Sub Inspector is the main conspirator who got prepared the
forged Will in order to cheat the complainant, the daughter-in-law of the
deceased-Balkar Singh. It was the petitioner who had produced the Will
before the Revenue Authorities. The wife of the petitioner was a P.A. to the
Deputy Commissioner, Fazilka, and therefore, they were well-connected.
Phone recordings between the parties also established that the offence of
forgery had been committed. While it was correct that a compromise had
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053144
2024:PHHC:053144
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M) ::8::
been arrived at, at an earlier stage as was evident from Annexure P-7, it was
the accused party which had refused to give possession of 04 acres of land to
the complainant under the compromise because of which it had failed. In
fact, even during the pendency of the instant proceedings, the parties had
appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court where
once again no compromise could be effected on account of the conduct of
the accused who refused to honour the Panchayti compromise (Annexure
P-7), as per which 04 acres of land was to come to the share of the
complainant. Balwant Rai was only a witness to the forged Will and there-
fore, his case was on a better footing than that of the petitioner. He, there-
fore, contends that as the offence was prima facie established on the basis of
enquiries pursuant to the filing of the complaint, the petitioner was not enti-
tled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
6. The learned counsel for the State while referring to the reply
dated 14.03.2024 contends that on the basis of the enquiry conducted so far,
it was found that it was the petitioner who had produced the forged Will
before the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, as the offence was prima facie
established, the petitioner was not entitled to the concession as prayed for.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sumitha Pradeep
Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977', 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:-
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053144
2024:PHHC:053144
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M) ::9::
"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
should consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053144
2024:PHHC:053144
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M) ::10::
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."
9. In the instant case, a complaint had been moved by the
complainant-Sandeep Kaur widow of Gaganpreet Singh with the allegations
that her in-laws' family including the petitioner had fabricated the Will of
her father-in-law/Balkar Singh and had produced the same before the
Revenue Authorities to get transferred the land in their name. The enquiry
conducted pursuant to the filing of the complaint has clearly established that
the petitioner being the brother of the deceased-Balkar Singh had produced
the Will before the Revenue Authorities and the statement of the concerned
Patwari was recorded to this effect. Phone recordings between the
complainant party and the accused side clearly establish that the Will had
been fabricated at the instance of the petitioner-Kuldeep Singh who happens
to be a retired police officer. Further, despite entering into a Panchayat
compromise (Annexure P-7), it is the accused side which has not honoured
the same inasmuch as the possession of 04 acres of land coming to the share
of the complainant was not given to her. The said fact has been conceded by
the petitioner as is apparent from the order of this Court dated 19.03.2024.
Therefore, on the one hand, the Will appears to be fabricated and on the
other hand, the compromise arrived at pursuant to the registration of the FIR
has not been honoured by the accused side. Therefore, the complainant who
is a widow has been left in more or less destitute condition. As the offence
has been prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to its
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053144
2024:PHHC:053144
CRM-M-7494-2024 (O & M) ::11::
logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly
required.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
11. 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
April 19, 2024
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
