Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh Alias Jassi vs State Of Punjab on 19 April, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
CRM-M No.17918 of 2024 (O&M) -- ::1:: 2024:PHHC:052591
204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.17918 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 19.04.2024
Jaswinder Singh @ Jassie Petitioner
versus
StateofPunjabo ee Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present :-
ke
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Colonel Saroop Singh-complainant in person.
ke
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438
Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.18 dated 22.03.2024 under
Sections 379 IPC, registered at Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur.
As per the contents of the FIR, it has been alleged as under :-
"Statement of Colonel Saroop Singh son of Chhaju Ram Minhas,
resident of Bhol Kalota, Police Station Talwara, District
Hoshiarpur, age about 66 years, Mobile Number 98735-96887. It is
stated that I am resident of the above said address and have come on
pension as a Colonel from Army Department. My land is situated in
village Bhol, Police Station Talwara. This land is in joint ownership
of me, my brother Randhir Singh Minhas, Commander Jagdev Singh
Minhas and late Shri Sukhdev Singh Minhas. Pushpinder Singh alias
Jogi, Jaswinder Singh alias Jassi sons of Isher Singh, Kulbhushan
Singh, Suneet Singh sons of Waryam Singh and Sudarshan Singh son
of late Hoshiar Singh, residents of Bhol Kalota, Police Station
Talwara are also common owners in the same land along with we
CRM-M No.17918 of 2024 (O&M) _ ::2:: 2024:PHHC:052591
four brothers. In accordance with the division made by our elders we
all the co-sharers are in possession of our respective share. Case
regarding division of the above said land of our all co-sharers is
pending in the court of Naib Tehsildar Talwara. In the second week
of January 2024, I was out from my home in connection with a work
and in my absence Jaswinder Singh alias Jassi son of Isher Singh
has cut my trees, from forest Bajur Nali area which is in my
possession and in which I have planted about 115 trees, in Jaman
area land planted 40 trees, total 155 trees namely Khair, Aamla,
Sarih, Keorh, Jaman, Beol and other trees were planted or were
naturally grown and I was owing all these trees. I came to know that
all these trees have been cut and taken away by someone. Regarding
cutting of these trees, I made enquiry at my own level and I came to
know that Jaswinder Singh alias Jassi son of late Isher Singh,
resident of Bhol Kalota, Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur
without informing me has cut and sold the trees to some unknown
person. He (Jaswinder Singh) put forward the name of Vinod Kumar
son of Kehar Singh, resident of Bhol Kalota, Police Station Talwara,
District Hoshiarpur with whom he has close acquaintance. My trees
have been cut and sold by Jaswinder Singh only. Till date
conversation between us was going on at Panchayat level but could
not be concluded. I was going to give intimation to you, you met,
proceedings be initiated. Statement heard and is correct. Sd/-
Colonel Saroop Singh."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cutting of trees
already stands compounded by the authorities under the Forest Act.
Reliance is being placed upon Annexure P-2 which is a receipt issued under
Section 68 IFA 1927 to demonstrate that the petitioner has deposited the
compensation for the material recovered leading to compounding of the
offence. He submits that the amount was deposited on behalf of Vinod
Kumar and not qua the petitioner as the same could not be construed as an
admission of guilt qua him. He further submits that the petitioner is
CRM-M No.17918 of 2024 (O&M) © ::3:: 2024:PHHC:052591
admittedly one of the co-owners of the land and thus he cannot be held
guilty of offence punishable under Section 379 IPC for having cut down the
trees from his own land. Reliance is being placed upon judgment passed by
Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204.
4 Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant, who
is present in person do not dispute that the petitioner is one of the co-owners
in the land and the partition proceedings are pending. However,
complainant submits that the trees have been cut down from the land which
was exclusively within the possession of the complainant and it is the
complainant who planted these trees. He further submits that it is highly
unbelievable that cutting down of more than 155 trees has been
compounded for a meager sum of Rs.39,730/-. Complainant submits that
infact there is no delay in reporting the matter. The complainant being away
from the scene reported the matter as soon as it came to his knowledge and
thus to say the delay is fatal to the case of the complainant is no where
stand. Learned counsel for the complainant has produced photographs
showing cutting of trees.
5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the case.
6 The allegations against the petitioner are regarding cutting
down 155 trees of Khair, Aamla, Sarih, Keorh, Jaman, Beol etc. It is not
denied that the trees have indeed been cut. Explanation offered is that the
petitioner offered to compound the offence by paying an amount of
Rs.39,730/-. In the considered opinion of this Court, the explanation
offered has not helped the case of the petitioner in any manner. As if
cutting of 155 grown up trees was not sufficient, the explanation appears to
CRM-M No.17918 of 2024 (O&M) -- ::4:: 2024:PHHC:052591
be even more scornful. It's an old saying 'man belongs to earth and earth
does not belong to man'.
7 As per settled law laid down by Apex Court in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, reiterated in Sushila
Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (3)
SCC I the Court while considering prayer for pre-arrest bail has to consider
as to whether the accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides, nature of
seriousness of the proposed charges, the role attributed to the applicant and
the probabilities of securing presence of the applicant during the course of
trial and as to whether there is any apprehension that the applicant will
tamper with the witnesses or evidence.
8 In view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner
and there being no reason to believe that the same are actuated by any
malafide, this Court does not find it to be a case for grant of discretionary
relief of pre-arrest bail.
9 Resultantly, the same is dismissed.
10 Needless to say that anything observed herein shall not be
construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE
19.04.2024
Pooja sharma-I
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
