Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shail Narang vs State Of Haryana on 21 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040634
1
CRM-M-4599-2024 2024:PHHC:040634
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4599-2024
Reserved on: 11.03.2024
Pronounced on: 21.03.2024
Shail Narang ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
0113 16.03.2022 Badshahpur, 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
District Gurugram (Section 201 IPC & 7,8 & 13(1)(b) of PC
Act 1988 added later on)
1. The petitioner, who is a woman aged 59 years, apprehending arrest in the FIR
captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking
anticipatory bail.
2. Vide order dated 31.01.2024, petitioner was granted interim bail which is
continuing till date.
3. Prosecution's case is being taken from reply dated 13.02.2024, which reads as
follows: -
"....the brief facts of the present case are that a complaint
no.2962/CP/22/APR dated 02.03.2022 and 206-5P dated
02.03.2022 was received in the police station for lodging FIR
against Subhash Chand, Smt. Shail Narang, Bhim Singh, Vinod,
Gurugram and other accused who in collusion with each other
tried to grab the land owned and possessed by the complainant
and his wife by preparing forged and fabricated documents and
registered a forged and fabricated sale deed bearing vasika
no.11493 dated 24.02.2022 on the basis of forged and fabricated
GPA No.13907 dated 18.09.1996. The complainants namely Puran
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040634
CRM-M-4599-2024 2024:PHHC:040634
Manchanda and Smt. Pratibha Manchanda, are owner in
possession of land bearing rect. No. 55, killa 3 / (7 - 9) , 4/1 (7 13)
total measuring 15 kanal 2 marla situated within the revenue
estate of Village Begampur Khatola, Tehsil Kadipur, District
Gurugram since last more than 30 years. The complainants never
sold out the aforesaid land to anybody nor ever executed any
power of attorney in any manner in favour of any person. On
28.02.2022 the complainant Puran Manchanda alongwith Mr.
BasantRaghav went to Patwar Bhawan Gurugram for obtaining
revenue papers of his aforesaid land wherein he was shocked and
surprised to know that a person known as Bhim Singh Rathicame
to the halqapatwari for sanctioning of mutation of the aforesaid
land of the complainants on the basis of forged and fabricated
sale deed bearing vasika No. 11493 dated 24.02.2022. On enquiry,
the complainant PuranManchanda further came to know that the
said forged and fabricated sale deed registered in the office of
Sub-Registrar Kadipur, District Gurugram has been executed and
got registered by Subhash Chand on the basis of forged and
fabricated GPA Vasika No. 13907 dated 18.09.1996 alleged to be
registered in the office of Sub-Registrar-V, South East Delhi.
However, the complainants never executed or registered any such
GPA in favour of any alleged Subhash Chand nor they ever met him
or know him in any manner. He is totally a stranger to the
complainants. The alleged GPA bearing vasika No. 13907 dated
18.09.1996 and the alleged sale deed bearing vasika No. 11493
dated 24.02.2022 are totally false, forged, fabricated, illegal and
fraudulent documents created by accused in collusion with other
persons and also colluding with the officials of Sub-Registrar
concerned without any notice, knowledge and involvement of the
complainants in any manner. The complainants never executed nor
registered the aforesaid GPA in any manner nor there had ever
been any involvement of the complainants in execution and
registration of the alleged GPA or the alleged sale deed in any
manner. The original sale deed of the aforesaid land is with them
i.e. complainants. The perusal of forged and fabricated sale deed
would reveal that the accused have not mentioned the PAN
Number in the alleged sale deed, nor there is any reference of
depositing 1% amount of TDS which is mandatory to be deposited
before execution and registration of the sale deed. The current
market value of the aforesaid land measuring 15 kanal 2 marla of
the complainants is not less than Rs.50 crores wherein the alleged
sale deed had been shown to be executed fraudulently showings
sale consideration of meagre amount of Rs.6,60,62,500/-. The
complainants never received any such alleged amount as shown in
the alleged sale deed bearing Vasika No. 11493 Dated 24.02.2022
which has been forged and fabricated by the accused persons in
collusion of the witnesses, scribe and officials of the Sub-Registrar
Tehsil KadipurDistt- Gurugram to cause wrongful loss to the
complainants and wrongful gain to themselves. Prayer was made
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040634
CRM-M-4599-2024 2024:PHHC:040634
to take legal action. Thereupon, the above mentioned FIR was
registered.
3. That the investigation of the present case was started by SI
Virender Singh. During the course of investigation of the present
FIR, the relevant record was obtained from Kadipur Tehsil. The
certified copies of Mutation no. 4490 dated 28.02.2022 and 4491
dated 03.03.2022 were obtained from the concerned Patwari.
4. That thereafter, the investigation was conducted by the
Economic Offence Wing-I, Gurugram. During investigation, the
petitioner ShailNarangand co-accused Subhash Chand, Vinod and
Bhim Singh Rathiwere joined in the investigation and they were
enquired about the present case. The certified copy of GPA No.
13907 dated 18.09.1996 was obtained from the office of Sub-
Registrar-V, Kalkaji, Delhi and the report regarding verification of
the same was obtained from Kadipur Tehsil, Gurugram. The
relevant sale deeds produced by the complainant were taken into
police possession.
5. That thereafter, the investigation was conducted by the SIT
constituted by the senior officers. The bank account statements of
the petitioner ShailNarangand co-accused Subhash Chand, Vinod
and Bhim Singh Rathi were obtained from the concerned banks.
The complainant as well as the accused party were joined in the
investigation and they were enquired about the present case. The
relevant record regarding GPA No. 13907 dated 18.09.1996 was
obtained from Sub-Registrar-V Delhi. The said GPA contains the
photographs of the complainant Puran Manchanda, his wife
Pratibha Manchanda and accused Subhash Chand. The verification
regarding Sandeep Advocate (shown as witness in the GPA) was
made from the Bar Council of Delhi, however, no such Advocate
was found in the Bar Council records. The verification regarding
the second witness namely P.K. Mehra was made and it came forth
that he had died in the year 2001. His death certificate was
obtained.
6. That Smt. Pratibha Manchanda (wife of the complainant) was
joined in the investigation of the present case. The information
regarding non-entry of PAN numbers in vasika no. 11493 dated
24.02.2022 was obtained from Kadipur Tehsil. The "Bahi" of GPA
No. 13907 dated 18.09.1996 and the "Bahi" of the previous and
subsequent registries were inspected in the office of Sub-
Registrar-V, Delhi and the record was found to be tampered. The
same were sent to RFSL Bhondsivide RC No. 931 dated 21.09.2023
for obtaining the expert opinion. The report of RFSL has been
received and the same is attached herewith as Annexure R-1.
7. That the accused Subhash Chand and Tony Yadav were arrested
on 19.09.2023. Another accused Sanjay Goswami was arrested on
20.09.2023. Accused Bhim Singh was arrested on 26.09.2023.
Their disclosure statements were recorded. The involvement of ASI
Pradeep Kumar was also found in the present matter as he was
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040634
CRM-M-4599-2024 2024:PHHC:040634
found to have received illegal gratification. Sections 7, 8 & 13(1)(b)
of PC Act and 201 IPC were added in the present case. The
specimen signatures of accused Tony Yadav were sent tp RFSL
Bhondsi. The report of RFSL has been received."
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings.
5. Mr. R.S. Rai's primary argument is that in the report given by the Senior Scientific
Officer (Docs)-RFSL Bhondsi, Gurugram, it has been observed that possibility that the
person who wrote red enclosed standard signatures stamped and marked A1 to A4 also
wrote the red enclosed questioned photostat signatures similarly stamped and marked
Q1 to Q4, cannot be ruled out. Based on this, counsel submits that the very allegation
that power of attorney was forged is not proved to be truthful, and the entire case has
to fall on this ground alone.
6. On the contrary, the state counsel, by referring to paragraph 6 of the reply, stated
that the investigator had evaluated the Bahi of GPA, and the record was found to be
tampered with. After that, the relevant record was sent to RFSL. State counsel further
submitted that the report "the possibility cannot be ruled out" would not establish that
the tampering did not happen, and it only shows that the tampering was done
meticulously, by some expert, and they need custodial interrogation to get a clue and to
do justice to the victim. The state further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to
bail on this ground because of the tampering of the documents and her participation in
the conspiracy by handing over post-dated cheques to allegedly fraudulent sellers.
7. An analysis of the above evidence does point out that the expert who examined
the handwriting could not say with certainty about the author of the documents. Given
the severe nature of the allegations, further investigation is required even in this regard,
and further investigation also has to be carried out despite knowledge of the absence of
tampering or the tampering with the connivance of the complainant and her
accomplices then undoubtedly the investigator/concerned SP shall initiate an action
against the complainant and co-conspirators for presenting a false complaint. However,
this report is only a secondary and corroborative piece of evidence, and the primary
evidence is the statement of the complainant where they have explicitly denied
execution of such power of attorney. In addition, there was no payment of TDS or
mention of a PAN card, and the Advocate, who was shown as the signatory, was not
found to exist. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on this ground.
8. Petitioner's counsel's following argument is that their civil suit is pending, which
would benefit the petitioner. State opposes such plea by referring to the judgment
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040634
CRM-M-4599-2024 2024:PHHC:040634
passed in Criminal Appeal No.1793 of 2023 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Pratibha Manchanda and another vs. State of Haryana and another, in which the
complainant-Pratibha Manchanda had challenged the grant of bail given by this Court to
one of the co-accused and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had allowed the said appeal
and set aside the order of grant of bail. While setting aside the bail order, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in a very detailed order addressed every aspect of the matter and also
clarified in para Nos.32 & 33 of the above-mentioned judgment, which reads as follows:-
"[32]. In case the vendees, the officers/officials of the Registering
Authority have secured anticipatory bail from Sessions Court/High Court,
the SIT shall be at liberty to seek suitable modifications to such orders so
that no impediment is caused in carrying out a fair and free investigation.
[33]. No interlocutory/interim order passed by the Civil Court shall
obstruct the ongoing investigation. The Civil Court shall not, from this
point forth, pass any such order in pending civil suits which may hamper
the ongoing investigation."
9. Given the above, the petitioner's argument cannot be accepted. Further, the
concerned Superintendent of Police is to ensure that the above-said order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been complied with in letter and spirit, and if the order is
not complied with, then the file be forwarded to the DGP, Haryana, for further strict
action for non-compliance, if any.
10. The petitioner's counsel argued that after the execution of the sale deed, the
complainant, with an ulterior motive, started pressurizing the sellers as well as the
petitioner and co-purchasers and blackmailing them with the help of local police, and
because of that, the petitioner, along with co-purchasers, had filed a Civil Suit for a
permanent injunction. Sr. Counsel further referred to para 12 of the petition and argued
that the complainant has never questioned or canceled the registered GPA for the last
26 years, and two further cross-cases were filed. Mr. Rai, based on para 15 of the
petition, submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and, along with co-
purchasers, had purchased the land from Subhash Chand, who was a GPA holder of the
original owners of the land and took all the precautions while purchasing the land and
original owners had relinquished all crucial rights about the land in question and now
they cannot be held responsible. The following argument on behalf of the petitioner is
that the allegation that the value of the land measuring fifteen kanals two marlas is Rs.
fifty crores is misconceived because the sale consideration was Rs.6,60,62,500/-. Mr. Rai
referred to para 19 of the petition and submitted that the complainant and his wife had
subsequently executed a sale deed of 16 kanals 12 marlas on 23.01.2023 situated in
village Begampur Khatola in favor of M/s Upkeepers App Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040634
CRM-M-4599-2024 2024:PHHC:040634
Rs.7,49,07,520/-, which shows the rate of agricultural land, in the area, as such value of
the land was not Rs.50 crores.
11. Counsel for the State submitted that he needs to find out whether the registration
authorities had looked into the matter for concealment of the registration fee by not
disclosing the circle rate, which will lead to an altogether separate offence, but, be that
as it may, on this ground the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
12. An analysis of this argument would reveal that even if Mr. Rai's arguments are
accepted, the petitioner is not entitled to bail simply because the complainant claims to
value their property for Rs.50 crores instead of a sale consideration of Rs.6,60,62,500/-.
The complainant's primary allegation is that the GPA was forged, the sale deed was
a sham, and the petitioner was part of a conspiracy because postdated cheques were
issued, which were never done in land sale deeds.
13. State counsel has further referred to para 13 of the reply, which reads as follows: -
"That the role of the petitioner Shail Narang in the present case is
that she has been involved in the entire conspiracy from the very
beginning. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the petitioner got
registered the sale deed of 07 kanals land of the complainant on
the basis of fake GPA. In the said sale deed, the petitioner had
shown six PDC cheques of Rs.3,06,25,000/-. The amount of
Rs.1,51,25,000/- has been found to be transferred in the personal
account of the petitioner from the account of accused Bhim Singh
Rathi, Rs.12,50,000/- has been found to be transferred from the
account of accused Vinod Rs.24,60,000/- has been found to be
transferred from the account of accused Tony Yadav,
Rs.76,77,000/- has been found to be transferred from the account
of accused KNSM Capital (firm of Kamalnath, son of accused
Subhash Chand) and Rs.30,00,000/- has been found to be
transferred from the account of Aman Transport (firm of accused
Om Bhati). In this way, the PDC cheques were found to be got
cleared by the petitioner Shail Narang and co-accused Subhash
Chand, Vinod, Bhim Singh Rathi and M/s Aman Transport
(proprietor Ombir Bhati) by transferring the same money in the
accounts."
14. An analysis of the above arguments would point out the conspiracy and
involvement of the petitioner with the co-accused, whose bail was dismissed.
15. Another factor that points out towards conspiracy is that unless the sale deed or
the land transfer takes place between close friends, relatives, family members, or where
there is an established relationship of trust, it is highly un-usual for the seller to execute
the sale deed based on postdated cheques. In the present case, it is crystal clear that
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040634
CRM-M-4599-2024 2024:PHHC:040634
the cheques were given to the seller because the seller had no interest in the land and
nothing to lose and because both the seller and purchasers were hand-in-glove. The
allegations are heinous, and the crime is serious.
16. The petitioner also seeks bail on the ground that she is a woman, and there is a
special provision for bail to a woman. The state opposes such prayer on the ground that
it is not the right of a woman to get bail, but it is one of the factors that the petitioner
had actively conspired with all the other accused, and she is not entitled to such
discretion. An analysis of the argument mentioned above would also point out that the
petitioner is not entitled to bail because she is a woman and given the severe nature of
the allegations, the massive amount of money involved, and dubious means by which
post-dated cheques were used in the transactions which point towards shrewdness in
the manner of execution of this entire criminal plan.
17. In Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529, Supreme Court
holds,
[16]. ... 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 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
anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not
required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail.
18. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Supreme Court
holds,
[5]. ....The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to
book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon
passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with
cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal
profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested
only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community
in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner
without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040634
CRM-M-4599-2024 2024:PHHC:040634
crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the
national economy and national interest....."
19. In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Supreme Court holds,
[6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than
questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable
order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective
interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring many useful informations and also materials which
would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would
elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very
often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere
ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with
the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods
need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced
by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that
responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of
disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.
20. InJai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Supreme Court
holds,
[19]. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence
are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief,
the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima
facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the
crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v.
P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd.
Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India
v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].
21. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Supreme Court holds,
[34]. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving
huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country
as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial
health of the country.
[35]. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature
of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and
other similar considerations.
22. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 9 SCC 24, Supreme Court
holds,
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040634
CRM-M-4599-2024 2024:PHHC:040634
[70]. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind
the introduction of Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to safeguard the
individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility
of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary
police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a
criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather
the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance
is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding
the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It
cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount
to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
23. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani, Cr.A 1148 of 2023, dated
17-04- 2023, Supreme Court, in an FIR registered under sections under Sections 7, 13(1)
and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holds,
[24]. The time−tested principles are that no straitjacket formula
can be applied for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial
discretion of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors
and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between
liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and the need for a fair and free investigation, which
must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devastating and
irreversible social stigma, humiliation, insult, mental pain and
other fearful consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court,
on consideration of material information gathered by the
Investigating Agency, is prima facie satisfied that there is
something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the
accused, it cannot jeopardise the investigation, more so when the
allegations are grave in nature.
[31]. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have
been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious
threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not
only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also
tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of
the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the
worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corruption is a tree whose branches are
of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew
that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of
authority." Hence, the need to be extra conscious.
24. In the background of the allegations and the light of the judicial precedents
mentioned above in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner fails
to make a case for anticipatory bail.
25. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to
these comments.
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040634
CRM-M-4599-2024 2024:PHHC:040634
Petition dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. All pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
21.03.2024
anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: YES.
10 of 10
