Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sohan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041092
2024:PHHC:041092
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M) ::1::
(102)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M)
Date of decision:20.03.2024
Sohan Singh ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Satnam Chauhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Govind Tanwar, Advocate,
for the complainant.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in this second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is
for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.9 dated
08.01.2014 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police
Station City Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Iqbal Singh filed
complaints dated 01.09.2011 and 29.09.2011 to the police which on an
enquiry culminated into the instant FIR and reads as under:-
"To the Hon'ble S.S.P. Sahib, SAS Nagar, Mohali,
Subject, Complaint for taking action against Sohan Singh S/o
Amar Singh, Harinder Kaur W/o Sohan Singh and Mohinder
Singh S/o Karam Singh. Sir, It is requested that the following
persons entered into an agreement to sell 58 marlas, 57 marlas,
58 marlas, 57 marlas total 220 marlas out of khasra No.588 for
total consideration of Rs.40 lacs, copies of which are attached
but thereafter they did not start any talk with us for executing
the Sale Deed of the above land. That they received Rs.40 lacs
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041092
2024:PHHC:041092
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M) ::2::
from us and now refused to execute the Sale Deed in our favour.
They have played fraud with us. 1) Sohan Singh S/o Amar Singh
R/o Dulchi Majra, District Ropar (99152-27517). 2) Harinder
Kaur W/o Sohan Singh R/o Dulchi Majra, District Ropar. 3)
Mohinder Singh S/o Karam Singh R/o House No.29, Near
Government Tubewell, Palsaura, U.T., Chandigarh (98144-
69794) kindly necessary legal action may be taken against
these accused. Thanking you, yours faithfully Sd/- Iqbal Singh
1.9.11 S/o Karnail Singh village Rajindergarh, Tehsil & District
Fatehgarh Sahib 9914204213, 9417702425, 9417472555. The
SSP Sahib marked the above complaint to the SHO, Police
Station, City Kharar for investigation and report but above said
Iqbal Singh submitted another complaint No. 1446/peshi/SSP
29/9/11, in which Iqbal Singh wrote that he wanted to get his
complaint investigated from Economic Offences Wing, Mohali
which was marked by inspector Pritam Singh Incharge
Economic Offence Wing to ASI Phool Chand Economic Offence
Wing(C) for investigation, the result of which is like this:
RESULT REPORT The inquiry report made till now, statement
of revenue Patwari, record and agreement to sell has been
examined carefully. It has been found from the complaint and
statement of the complainant that Iqbal Singh executed four
agreements to sell on 8.6.2005 according to which an
agreement to sell was executed with Sohan Singh regarding 58
shares (0-58 Marla) khasra No.588 in khewat/khatoni
No.640/725 the land situated in Kharar to whom Rs. 10 lac
were given at the time of agreement and one more agreement to
sell on the same day was executed with Smt. Harinder Kaur
W/o Sohan Singh S/o Amar Singh R/o Dulchi Majra, District
Ropar, regarding 57 shares (0-57 Marla) in the same khasra
No.588 in khewat/khatoni Number and Rs 10 lac were given to
Harinder Kaur on 8.6.2005 at the time of agreement. One more
agreement to sell with Mohinder Singh S/o Karam Singh House
No.29, Near Government Tubewell, village Palsaura, U.T.
Chandigarh with Iqbal Singh regarding 58 shares (0-58 Marla)
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041092
2024:PHHC:041092
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M) ::3::
and Mohinder Singh received Rs.10 lac at the time of
agreement. Mohinder Singh previously executed this agreement
with Tara Singh S/o Dharam Singh and Kamla Yashvir W/o
Tara Singh R/o Tuto Majra, District Hoshiarpur regarding 115
shares (115 Marlas) out of khasra No.588 and on the same day
one more agreement was executed by above said Mohinder
Singh with Iqbal Singh regarding 57 shares (0-57 Marla) out of
khasra No.588 and reived Rs. 10 lac at time of agreement. This
agreement was previously executed by Mohinder Singh with
Kamla Yashvir Singh W/o Tara Singh. Therefore, on 8.6.2005
Iqbal Singh executed 4 agreements to sell with Sohan Singh,
Harinder Kaur and Mohinder Singh and paid Rs.40 lac cash.
The date of Sale Deed was fixed as 16.5.2006 in all the 4
agreements and the balance amount was to be given by Iqbal
Singh at the time of Sale Deed but in the meantime on 1.7.05
the Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala stayed his own
order of mutation No.20363. So a case started due to stay order
on khasra No.588 and on 15.5.06 the date was extended till the
pendency of case but Sohan Singh, Harinder Kaur and
Mohinder Singh neither returned the amount of the complainant
nor did execute the Sale Deed. Mohinder Singh S/o Karam
Singh caste Ramgharia House No.29, Palsaura, Near
Government Tubewell stated in his statement that he was driver
of the vehicle of Sohan Singh. On asking of Sohan Singh he
executed agreement to sell on 8.6.05 on lower rates previously
with Tara Singh S/o Dharam Singh and his wife Kamla Yashvir
Singh, R/o Tuto Majra, District Hoshiarpur and thereafter
executed two agreements with Iqbal Singh S/o Karnail Singh
village Rejindergarh on higher rates. Out of the amount he
received from Iqbal Singh, Rs.7,50,000/- Sohan Singh gave to
Tara Singh. The balance amount was retained by Sohan Singh
with him. I have only put my signatures. From the inquiry
report it has also been found as per report of Parwari
Tarlochan Kumar, the names of Harinder Kaur W/o Sohan
Singh and Kamla Yashvir W/o Tara Singh are not there in the
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041092
2024:PHHC:041092
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M) ::4::
revenue record due to this reason, the agreements made in their
names are wrong and Sohan Singh, Harinder Kaur and
Mohinder Singh in connivance with each other executed 4
agreements to sell and received Rs.40 lac from Iqbal Singh and
till now neither executed Sale Deed in his name nor returned
the amount to him. In this regard, after obtaining the opinion of
DA Legal, it is recommended to register the FIR. Sd/- Phool
Chand ASI EOW(C) dated 27.2.12. On which Inspector Pritam
Singh Incharge:-Economic Offences Wing(C) after agreeing
with the report of ASI Phool Chand and after obtaining the
opinion of DA Legal recommended to register the case. Sd/-
Pritam Singh Inspector Incharge:-Economic Offences Wing(C)
27.2.12. The above complaint was sent to Hon'ble SSP Sahib,
Deputy Superintendent of Police who agreeing with the report
of the Investigation Officer and after obtaining the opinion of
DA Legal recommended to register the case. The Hon'ble SSP
Sahib sent the above complaint to Superintendent of Police who
sent to Superintendent Police Local who after taking the
opinion of Investigating Officer and DSP(D) and expressing his
agreement sent to Hon'ble SSP Sahib. Who sent the above
complaint along with inquiry report to DDA Legal for opinion
whose opinion is like this. No.1597 DDA Legal dated 17.12.13.
Subject-Complaint No. 1283 peshi/SSP/SAS Nagar dated 1.9.11
and 1446 peshi dated 29.9.12. Complaint from Iqbal Singh S/o
Karnail Singh R/o Village Rajindergarh, Tehsil and District
Fatehgarh Sahib. Sir, I have examined the complaint of the
complainant, documents placed on the file, statements of the
witnesses and the report of the Investigating Officer. In my
opinion, prima-facie, offence under Section 406, 420, 120-B
IPC is made out against the second parties Sohan Singh, his
wife Harinder Kaur and Mohinder Singh. Sd/- DDA Legal, SAS
Nagar. On which Hon'ble SSP Sahib ordered to SHO, City
Kharar to register the case and investigate Sd/- SSP SAS Nagar.
After receiving FIR registered for the above offences against
above persons and copy of the FIR is forwarded to Ilaqua
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041092
2024:PHHC:041092
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M) ::5::
Magistrate and Higher Officers through Dak. The Cantrol
Room SAS Nagar and Circle DSP, Kharar were informed on
telephone. The FIR file alongwith complaint is being sent to ASI
Harpal Singh for investigation. The MHC is directed to
complete the record."
3. The wife of the present petitioner, namely, Harinder Kaur
approached this Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail by filing of CRM-M-
3733 of 2014 and was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.03.2014
subject to the following conditions:-
".....The petition is allowed subject to her depositing
50% of the amount received by her subject to the condition that
she will discharge her part of civil lability. She is ordered to be
released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer
subject to following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by
the police and the petitioner will give a sum of Rs.3 lacs to the
complainant with in a period of one month from today as she
has agreed to discharge her part of the liability.
(ii) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence or hamper
the investigation in any manner.
It is made clear that in case of violation of any of the
aforesaid conditions it will be open to the prosecution to seek
cancellation of the bail order...."
4. The present petitioner earlier approached this Court for the
grant of pre-arrest bail by filing a petition bearing No. CRM-M-7617 of
2014 which was dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2014 with the following
observations:-
"The petitioner is alleged to have received a sum of ` 10
lacs and connived with his co-accused in not executing the sale
deed. An interim protection was granted to the petitioner
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041092
2024:PHHC:041092
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M) ::6::
subject to pay a sum of ` 10 lacs to the complainant Iqbal Singh
as agreed by the petitioner. Petitioner has not complied with the
said direction.
There are no extra ordinary circumstances existing for
grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner
to approach this Court after arranging/ paying a sum of ` 10
lacs to the complainant".
5. Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) for the grant of pre-arrest
bail by way of a petition bearing BA No.1121 of 2020 which was dismissed
vide order dated 13.07.2020 with the following observations:-
"...As per the record, it is clear that this is 3rd bail
application moved by the applicant Sohan Singh. He has been
gaining time by moving such applications since 2014. earlier he
had given an undertaking in the Hon'ble High Court but failed
to comply with the same. Even till today, he has not complied
with the order of payment of ₹10,00,000/- each by him and his
wife. As such no ground is made to grant him anticipatory bail
and the bail application filed by the applicant Sohan Singh is
dismissed. Police record be returned. File be consigned to the
Record Room..."
6. So far as Mohinder Singh is concerned, he was arrested in the
present case on 08.12.2023 and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. stands
presented against him on 04.02.2024.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The dispute which
was purely of a civil nature had been converted into a criminal case. The
instant FIR had been got registered as the complainant could neither institute
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041092
2024:PHHC:041092
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M) ::7::
a suit for recovery nor did he file a suit for specific performance of the
contract. While granting interim bail to the petitioner at the first instance,
the Court could not have directed him to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs to the
complainant-Iqbal Singh. Be that as it may, the petitioner had indeed tried to
arrange money but could not do so. He had agreed to make the payment but
to his shock, the complainant had stated that he would charge a sum of Rs.5
lacs to give consent for the grant of bail to him and his wife. It was, in these
circumstances, that his first bail petition came to be dismissed as he was
unable to arrange the said amount and a further amount of Rs.5 lacs as
sought by the complainant. As the dispute was purely of a civil nature and
the petitioner was ready and willing to join the investigation, he was entitled
to the concession of anticipatory bail.
8. The learned counsel for the State alongwith the counsel for the
complainant, on the other hand, while referring to the replies dated
29.09.2023and 20.03.2024 contend that the petitioner and his wife were
playing hide and seek with the Court. His wife-Harinder Kaur had been
granted the concession of anticipatory bail with the condition that she would
deposit 50% of the amount received by her. She failed to do so for the last
10 years and therefore, the State was in the process of filing a petition to
cancel her bail. So far as the present petitioner was concerned, he had
consented to pay an amount of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant. It was only
when the said payment was not made, that his bail application came to be
dismissed. Interestingly, his first petition for bail was dismissed way back
on 07.04.2014. Thereafter, he approached the Sessions Court once again
which dismissed his third petition for the grant of anticipatory bail on
13.07.2020 after which he approached this Court. He had been absconding
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041092
2024:PHHC:041092
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M) ::8::
for the last 10 years. Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were
initiated against the accused and his arrest warrants had also been obtained
from the Court and efforts were being made to execute them. On account of
the lapse on the part of the investigating agency, departmental action had
been ordered against various police officials. Be that as it may, an SIT had
now been constituted which had led to the arrest of Mohinder Singh, a co-
accused of the petitioner and a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stands
presented against him. As the first bail petition of the petitioner came to be
dismissed way back in the year 2014, the instant second petition had been
filed without any change in natural circumstances, the offence stood prima
facie established against him and he had been absconding from the last 10
years, he was not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Reliance is
placed on 'Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR
(Criminal) 977' and 'Srikant Upadhyay and ors. Versus State of Bihar
and anr. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7940 of 2023 decided on
14.03.2024)'
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. 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:-
"It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041092
2024:PHHC:041092
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M) ::9::
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
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
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041092
2024:PHHC:041092
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M) ::10::
interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Srikant Upadhyay
and ors. Versus State of Bihar and anr. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
No.7940 of 2023 decided on 14.03.2024)' has held as under:-
"24. We have already held that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many
cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any
stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule.
It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left
to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending
on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon
to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the
accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and
may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may
sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We
shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not
pass an interim protection pending consideration of such
application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom
of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that
such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate,
when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant
is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this
will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail
in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then,
person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is
not entitled to such grant".
12. An examination of the record would reveal that the FIR was
registered on 08.01.2014 on the basis of complaints made in September,
2011. The wife of the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail on
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041092
2024:PHHC:041092
CRM-M-43735-2023 (O & M) ::11::
certain conditions which she refused to fulfill. On account of extreme laxity
on the part of the investigating agency, no further action was taken against
her for cancellation of the bail granted to her. So far as the present petitioner
was concerned, his first bail petition came to be declined vide order dated
07.04.2014 after which he had been absconding. He had instituted his third
petition for the grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which
also came to be dismissed. It was only three years thereafter that he filed the
instant second petition for the grant of anticipatory bail without any change
in the circumstances whatsoever. A perusal of the FIR would reveal that not
only is the prima facie offence established but the custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is certainly required to take the investigation to its logical
conclusion. Even otherwise, as he is absconding for the last 10 years and
warrants of arrest have also been issued against him, the question of grant of
anticipatory bail to him at this stage does not arise.
13. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
14. 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
March 20, 2024
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
