Sonia Multani vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 5338 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sonia Multani vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 March, 2024

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034276




                                            2024:PHHC:034276
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
207
                                                            CRM-M-9884-2023
                                                        Reserved on: 05.03.2024
                                                      Pronounced on: 11.03.2024

Sonia Multani
                                                                     ......Petitioner

                                     Versus

State of Punjab and another
                                                                .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:    Mr. Loveleen Nanda, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate

            Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab

                                      ****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present petition is preferred under Section 439(2) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') for cancellation of bail

granted to respondent no. 2 vide order dated 25.09.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed

by this Court in FIR no. 14 dated 30.01.2020 registered under Sections 406,

420, 120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station Balongi, District S.A.S.

Nagar (Mohali).

2. The facts, in brief, are that co-accused Balwinder Singh

dishonestly obtained General Power of Attorney dated 27.09.2005, executed by

his father Bant Singh and his uncle Dev Singh, in order to sell their land

measuring 34 kanal 18 marla in village Balongi. Balwinder Singh entered into

an agreement dated 18.10.2005 with the petitioner for sale of 10 kanal 19 marla

of land, using the said GPA. In furtherance of the same, the petitioner paid Rs.

20,00,000/- as earnest money and Rs. 41,00,000/- towards the total

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034276

2024:PHHC:034276

consideration amount. Vide sale deed dated 15.12.2005, instead of selling the

said land to the petitioner, Balwinder Singh dishonestly sold 2 kanal, 12 marla

of land to one Balbir Singh. Concealing the factum of this sale, Balwinder

Singh got his father and uncle to execute agreement to sell with

acknowledgment of receipts of Rs. 1,20,53,125/- i.e. full payment for 203

marlas, thereby causing wrongful loss to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 2

was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in CRM-M-16959-2020 vide order

dated 01.07.2020, which was made absolute vide order dated 25.09.2020

(Annexure P-2 colly) subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438

Cr.P.C. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented on 06.09.2020

against Balwinder Singh, Balbir Singh and respondent no. 2. However, on

06.09.2020, HC Satnam Singh recorded a statement to the effect that

respondent no. 2 could not be produced in Court as he is presently out of

country (Annexure P-3). Respondent no. 2 remained absent from the trial on

27.10.2022, consequently, a notice was issued to him for 21.11.2022.

Respondent no. 2 had left the country prior permission of this Court which

amounts to violation of Section 438(2)(iii) Cr.P.C., which calls for cancellation

of bail granted to him.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 contends that respondent no.

2 has not been named in the FIR and he was granted anticipatory bail by this

Court which was made absolute vide order dated 25.09.2020. Respondent no. 2

left the country before the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented,

which further elucidates that he had no intentions to flee from due course of

justice. He further contends that respondent no. 2 is regularly appearing before

the learned trial Court on each an every date. Reliance in this regard is placed

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034276

2024:PHHC:034276

on the judgments rendered by this Court in Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

in CRA-S-2611-2023 and Major Singh v. State of Punjab in CRM-M-36490-

2022.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing

the record of the case, it transpires that respondent no. 2 had left the country

before the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented on 06.09.2020.

Respondent no. 2 has been appearing regularly on each and every date before

the learned trial Court as discernible from the zimni orders relied upon by

learned counsel for respondent no. 2. This Court finds force in the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that respondent no. 2 has not

tried to conceal himself or evade the process of law and that his absence from

the trial was due to bona fide omission.

6. The scope and power of the judicial review of an order granting

bail has been illustrated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram and

others Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, as follows:-

"(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice;

(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice;

(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner;

(iv) possibility of the accused absconding;

(v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail;

(vi)likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses."

7. A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak

Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2022) 8 SCC 559, speaking

through Justice Krishna Murari, has summarized the principles for grant or

denial of bail. The power and discretion of the Court to cancel the bail of the

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034276

2024:PHHC:034276

accused in the absence of overriding circumstances was illustrated and the

following was observed:-

"33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:

33.1. Where the Court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.

33.2. Where the Court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.

33.3. Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail.

33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds. 33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.

33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified. 33.7. When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case."

8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered

view that a layman must be given the benefit of doubt as he may not be aware

of the scope and impact of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Respondent no. 2 did not

deliberately leave the country as an attempt to evade the due course of justice

and as such, cancellation of bail for a harmless and naive violation of bail

conditions, would not meet the objective standard of reason and justice.

Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in

Naveen Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2019(1) R.C.R.(Criminal)

537.

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034276

2024:PHHC:034276

9. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Pending

miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

                                                   (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 11, 2024                                           JUDGE
manisha

             (i)     Whether speaking/reasoned                    Yes/No

             (ii)    Whether reportable                           Yes/No




                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034276

                                          5 of 5