Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons 240 30.06.2024 City Kharar, SAS Nagar 406, 420 IPC

¶1The pe!!oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above has come up before this Court under Sec!on 438 CrPC, seeking an!cipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 14 of the bail pe!!on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: "5. That the present FIR has been registered on the complaint made by complainant Manjit Singh that applicant has duped him to the tune of Rs. 80 lakhs. The pe""oner Jaspal Singh agreed to sell a house measuring 250 square yard in Garden Colony, Kharar for a sum of Rs. 1,24,000,00/- on

09.05.2023. Jaspal Singh received a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs from him. He was required to produce NOC for execu"ng sale deed in his favor. The date for execu"on of sale deed was extended from "me to "me on receipt of order/judgment. 1 payment by applicant Jaspal Singh. Subsequently, he reneged from his promise and cheated him to the tune of Rs. 80 lakhs."

¶4The pe!!oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and his family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

¶6The complainant's counsel also opposed the bail and made the following submissions: "2. That the pe""oner is not en"tled for the concession of an"cipatory bail as pe""oner has duped the deponent/complainant to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- (80 Lacs) by entering into agreement to sell (Annexure P-2) for the house measuring 250 sq. yards situated in village Khanpur, Tehsil Kharar, Dis=. SAS Nagar and in pursuance of the agreement to sell. Despite admi=ed receipts of Rs. 85,00,000/- by pe""oner he never turned up with requisite documents to get the sale deed registered in favor of deponent/complainant.

¶3That the malafide intent of the pe""oner to dupe the deponent/complainant is writ large from the fact that the total sale considera"on was Rs.1,24,00,000/- (1 crore twenty-four lacs) out of which the pe""oner had received Rs. 80,00,000/- (80 lacs) from the deponent/complainant. While the pe""oner was asking for money from the deponent/complainant and issuing valid receipts to him on one hand while in the other hand he was ge@ng his a=endance marked in the tehsil office so that he can make out a case of deponent/complainant not turning up to get the sale deed registered otherwise there was no occasion for him to get the affidavits dated 05.11.2023 and 28.11.2023 a=ested while taking advance sum of money from the deponent/complainant.

¶4That the case of the pe""oner falls flat on the ground that on

21.12.2023 (date of execu"on of sale deed) the pe""oner was not even having a valid no objec"on cer"ficate or the approved site plan which was pre-requisite for ge@ng the sale deed registered. The relevant condi"on regarding obtaining the same as enumerated in the agreement to sell is reproduced her under: - "the first party shall be bound to obtain NOC of the above said house from order/judgment. 2 the office of Municipal Council Kharar"

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the bail pe!!on, which read as follows: "3. That since the complainant was not having sufficient funds to make payment of balance sale considera"on, therefore, on the request made by the complainant, the date for the registra"on of the sale deed was extended from 24.08.2023 to 29.09.2023 thereaEer extended to

29.10.2023 and then to 15.11.2023. However, the sale Deed could not be executed and on 16.11 2023 an amount of Rs. 15 lacs more as a part payment was also paid to the pe""oner and the date of execu"on of the sale deed was extended to 25 11 2023, which is clear from the receipt dated 16 11 2023.

¶4That on 25 11.2023, again the sale deed was not executed and on

11.12.2023 an amount of Rs.10 lacs more was paid in cash to the pe""oner and a total amount of Rs 80 lacs was received by the pe""oner on 11.12.2023 when a further date was extended to 21.12.2023, which is clear from the receipt dated 11.12.2023, a copy of which is a=ached herewith as Annexure P/3. It is per"nent to men"on here that an amount of Rs.5 lacs in between was also paid to the pe""oner on 17.11.2023.

¶5That since the sale deed was not being executed by the pe""oner, as the last date for execu"on of the sale deed had elapsed on 21 12.2023. ThereaEer, a legal no"ce dated 05.06.2024 was got served by the pe""oner upon the respondent for recession of agreement and also for forfeiture of the earnest money paid to the pe""oner. Copy of the legal no"ce dated 05.06.2024 is a=ached herewith as Annexure P/4. It may be per"nent to men"on here that the inten"on of the complainant was not to get the sale deed registered, as the complainant was not having sufficient funds to register the sale deed, that's why before the legal no"ce was served, the complainant had made a complaint to the police authori"es and with the connivance of the police, the aforesaid FIR was registered on

30.06.2024 under Sec"ons 406 and 420 IPC."

¶8It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the reply, which read as follows: "ROLE OF THE PETITIONER

¶8That the contents of the complaint was inves"gated during preliminary JYOTI inves"ga"on of the present case it has come into light that the pe""oner order/judgment. 3 aEer receiving an amount of Rs. 80,0000/- (Eighty Lac.) from the complainant refused to execute the sale deed in favor of the complainant. The pe""oner despite having the NOC dated 09.02.2024 with him, did not produce the same and received the amount on different dates as part payment of sale considera"on. The inten"on of the pe""oner is clear that despite having the NOC with him he did not executed the Sale deed in favor of the complainant. Furthermore, the conversa"on (recording produced in pen drive) produced by the complainant envisaged that the complainant admi=ed that he had received the amount of Rs. 80 Lac but pe""oner categorically refused to execute the sale deed. EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER

¶9That during the inves"ga"on the following evidence was collected qua the pe""oner. A) Copy of agreement and receipts of payment signed by both the par"es to agreement to sell. B) Pen Drive contained the recording of the complainant and the pe""oner whereby the pe""oner had specifically denied execu"ng the sale deed aEer receiving the huge amount of Rs 80 lac. C) The statements of witness namely Harnek Singh, Gurinder Singh, Amarjit Singh, and Hardeep Singh in support of the agreement and payment made to the pe""oner through various receipts, and further the witness in their respec"ve statements admi=ed that the pe""oner in order to deceive the complainant denied execu"on of the sale deed in favor of the complainant."

¶9Although the pe!!oner's malicious intent is inferable, he can be interrogated for recovery, and for such purpose, at this stage, the pe!!oner's liberty should not be curtailed. The necessary steps, such as interroga!ng the pe!!oner, must be taken to recover the money; however, if the inves!gator fails to recover the money. In that case, the State and the complainant shall be at liberty to file an applica!on for cancella!on of this bail before the trial Court/Sessions Court, which shall be en!tled to cancel this bail order.

¶10Pre-trial incarcera!on should not be a replica of post-convic!on sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu!on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of an!cipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jus!fy custodial interroga!on or pre-trial incarcera!on. order/judgment. 4

¶11Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega!ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus!fiability for custodial interroga!on or the pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage. Without commen!ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men!oned above, the pe!!oner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the !me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶12Given above, provided the pe!!oner is not required in any other case, the pe!!oner shall be released on an!cipatory bail in the FIR cap!oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the Arres!ng Officer, and if the maCer is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep!ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa!sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶13While furnishing a personal bond, the pe!!oner shall men!on the following personal iden!fica!on details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the aCes!ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶14This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms.

¶15The pe""oner is directed to join the inves"ga"on within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Inves"gator. The pe!!oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec!on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec!on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe!!oner shall join the inves!ga!on as and when called by the Inves!ga!ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves!ga!on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecu!on will be open to seeking cancella!on of the bail. During the inves!ga!on, the pe!!oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶16The pe!!oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi!ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe!!oner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and order/judgment. 5 circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶17In case the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta!on arraigns another sec!on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec!on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec!ons men!oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec!on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec!ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec!ons men!oned above; then, in that case, the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe!!oner no!ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶18This bail is condi!onal, and the founda!onal condi!on is that if the pe!!oner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica!on for cancella!on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶19Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶20A cer!fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe!!oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aCest it to be a true copy. If the aCes!ng officer wants to verify its authen!city, such an officer can also verify its authen!city and may download and use the downloaded copy for aCes!ng bonds.

¶21Pe11on allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

29.11.2024 Jyo1-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 13.11.2024 Pronounced on: 29.11.2024 Jaspal Singh ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advocate, Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate and Ms. Parul Panchal, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate, for the complainant. ****