Pargat Singh v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J . FIR No. Dated Police Sta+on Sec+ons 74 08.03.2020 Sohana, District SAS 406 & 420 IPC Nagar (Mohali)

¶1The pettoner apprehending arrest in the FIR captoned above has come up before this Court under Secton 482 of Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking antcipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 13 of the bail petton, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Sta+on 1 88 28.03.2003 420 IPC Civil Lines, Amritsar 2 36 08.03.2016 380 IPC Laddowal, Ludhiana 3 107 13.11.2016 384 IPC Chatwind, Amritsar 4 247 29.12.2017 336 IPC Beas, Amritsar

¶3The facts and allegatons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "That it is respec>ully submited here that the complainants namely Salinder Kaur and Puneet Lekha had submited a complaint No. 2221/P/SSP dated 10.06.2019 before the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar against Hardeep Singh, Pargat Singh/the present order/judgment. 1 pe**oner, Satnam Singh, Sukhjinder Singh, Baldev Singh, Harnek Singh, Nirpal Singh, Surjit Singh and Sukhder Singh. In the aforesaid complaint, the complainants had broadly stated that on assurance of the Hardeep Singh, Satnam Singh, Sukhjinder Singh, Baldev Singh, Harnek Singh and Sukhder Singh, the complainants entered into an agreement to sell on

04.04.2019 with Hardeep Singh, owner of the land in ques*on i.e. 18 Bigha 6-1/5 Biswa situated at Village Alizpur, H.B. 283, Tehsil Banur, District SAS Nagar. All the aforesaid accused assured her that there was no prior agreement to sell or sale deed executed with regard to land in ques*on. The accused Satnam Singh, Sukhjinder Singh, Baldev Singh and Harnek Singh, who represented themselves to the complainants as property dealers, had also taken Rs. 30,000/- each as commission from the complainants for the aforesaid deal. The complainants further stated that she had paid Rs. 40 Lakhs to Hardeep Singh as earnest money through different cheques and the cheques were duly encashed by the accused Hardeep Singh in his bank account. The Agreement to Sell was executed for 18 Bighas 6-1/5 Biswa land and total sale considera*on was fixed @ Rs. 56 Lakhs per acre i.e. for Rs. 2 crores and 10 Lakhs approximately. The date for execu*on of sale deed was fixed for

30.09.2019 in the name of the complainants or their nominee. The aforesaid accused further assured the complainants that there is no defect in the *tle of the property in ques*on and the same is free from all kind of li*ga*on. The part of the property in ques*on was mortgaged for Rs. 8 lakhs and the accused Hardeep Singh assured to clear the mortgage from the amount received by him as earnest money from the complainants. The aforesaid accused accordingly cleared the aforesaid mortgage from the earnest money he received. On 16.04.2019, when one day the complainants visited the property in ques*on, they came to know from the villagers that the accused Hardeep Singh was openly telling everyone that he was not going to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the complainants. When the complainants confronted him, he said that he had commited chea*ng with them and now the complainants could not do anything against them. The complainants further stated that they had filed a civil suit no. 306/2019 *tled as Salinder Kaur and Ors. vs. Hardeep Singh and got the stay order on the aliena*on of suit property on

25.04.2019 and 14.05.219. The accused Hardeep Singh appeared on

03.05.2019 and filed applica*on for dismissal of the civil suit on ground JYOTI that Sale Deed of the land in ques*on already stood executed on order/judgment. 2

15.04.2019. When the complainants asked them about the sale deed, the accused told the complainants that they just wanted to grab money from them, which they did.

¶2That the complainants further stated that accused Pargat Singh/the pe**oner was the rela*ve of the accused Hardeep Singh. They in connivance with each other had executed Sale Deed dated 15.04.2019 in favour of Pargat Singh/the pe**oner without paying any sale considera*on and for playing fraud upon the complainants. The witnesses who signed the Sale Deed namely Surjit Singh and Sukhder Singh were also involved in the whole fraud. The complainants further sated that there was no iden*fica*on of Sukhder Singh on the sale deed, which further proved fraud commited by them. The Sale Deed dated 15.04.2019 was a fraud as neither proper Sale Deed was executed as sale considera*on was not paid through bank transac*ons nor it was proper exchange of land. The complainants further stated that no land stood transferred vide the aforesaid Sale Deed in village Chutala, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. The complainants further stated that the Sale Deed in ques*on was executed at 7:04:17 pm whereas Tehsildar office got closed at 5:00 pm. The complainants further stated that all the aforesaid persons were land grabbers and were habitual in chea*ng the people and they all conspired to cause loss to the complainants. Hence, the complainant sought legal ac*on against the aforesaid persons."

¶4The pettoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditons and contends that further pre-trial incarceraton would cause an irreversible injustce to the pettoner and their family.

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

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portons of the reply, which read as follows: "ROLE OF THE PETITIONER

¶5That during ini*al inves*ga*on, it came forth that the pe**oner in connivance with the main accused Hardeep Singh had inten*onally executed Sale Deed of land in ques*on on 15.04.2019 in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainants. During the execu*on of the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 15.04.2019 neither the accused Pargat Singh paid the whole sale considera*on nor it was a proper exchange deed, which prima order/judgment. 3 facie shows the connivance of the pe**oner in duping the complainants. EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER

¶6That as the inves*ga*on qua the pe**oner is at ini*al stage, hence at this stage, Sale Deed dated 15.04.2019 executed by the main accused Hardeep Singh in favour of the present pe**oner, is crucial evidence against him which shows the connivance of the pe**oner with the main accused."

¶7Although there is sufficient evidence connectng the pettoner with the alleged occurrence, but the incident pertains to the year 2019, on this ground alone, pettoner is not required for custodial interrogaton and pre-trial incarceraton.

¶8Pre-trial incarceraton should not be a replica of post-convicton sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecuton or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of antcipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justfy custodial interrogaton or pre-trial incarceraton.

¶9Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegatons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justfiability for custodial interrogaton or the pre-trial incarceraton at this stage. Without commentng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentoned above, the pettoner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the tme it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶10Given above, provided the pettoner is not required in any other case, the pettoner shall be released on antcipatory bail in the FIR captoned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satsfacton of the Arrestng Officer, and if the maGer is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before acceptng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satsfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶11While furnishing a personal bond, the pettoner shall menton the following personal identficaton details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the aGestng officer/court considers it appropriate or order/judgment. 4 considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶12The 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 pettoner shall be in deemed custody for Secton 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Secton 23 of BSA, 2023. The pettoner shall join the investgaton as and when called by the Investgatng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investgaton at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecuton will be open to seeking cancellaton of the bail. During the investgaton, the pettoner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶13The pettoner shall abide by all statutory bond conditons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pettoner 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 circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶14In case the Investgator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Staton arraigns another secton of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new secton prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sectons mentoned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added secton(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sectons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sectons mentoned above; then, in that case, the Investgator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pettoner notce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶15This bail is conditonal, and the foundatonal conditon is that if the pettoner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applicaton for cancellaton of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶16Any observaton made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶17A certfied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pettoner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aGest it to be a true copy. If the aGestng officer wants to verify its authentcity, such an officer can also verify its authentcity and may order/judgment. 5 download and use the downloaded copy for aGestng bonds.

¶18Pe++on allowed in terms mentoned above. All pending applicatons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

14.01.2025 Jyo* II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 6

226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 14.01.2025 Pargat Singh ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the pettoner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Anmol Puri, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ****