Judge Singh Brar v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta.on Sec.ons 404 11.11.2024 City Faridkot, Disti. Faridkot 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC

¶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.

¶2As per paragraph 13 of the bail petton and as per paragraph 8 of the status report, the accused has following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Sec.ons Police Sta.on

¶1176 29.05.2006 326, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC Baghapurana, Disti. Moga

¶232 19.02.2009 302, 34 IPC Baghapurana, Disti. Moga

¶3225 16.09.2005 382, 511, 353, 186, 506, 34 IPC Baghapurana, Disti. Moga

¶3The facts and allegatons are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: "3. That the brief facts of case are that Gursewak Singh (complainant of the case) submited an applicaton No.965/PGD/24 dated 10.09.2024 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot and regarding the allegatons mentoned in the said applicaton, a thorough and deep inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police (PBI & INV), Faridkot and the facts emerged during inquiry are that, the complainant GursewakJYOTI order/judgment. 1 Singh is the 87 years old person. His eye sight is very low due to old age. A8er the death of the complainant's father Kashmira Singh in the year 1981, complainant is in possession of about 20 Kila of land belonged to him. In the year of 1998, mutaton of the said land was transferred by the Revenue Department to the name of Punjab Government. Whereupon, all the heirs of complainant's father Kashmira Singh filed a petton against the Punjab Government in the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 09.12.2015 set aside the mutaton of transfer of ownership in the name of the Punjab Government and transferred in favour of complainant etc. But even a8er this decision, due to legal issues, mutaton of land was not being transferred back to their names, regarding which, complainant has also filed CWP no. 26137 of 2017 in the Hon'ble High Court, which is stll pending before the Hon'ble High Court. In the meantme, complainant had acquainted with Gursewak Singh Brar through his Bhanja Gurdial Singh. Gursewak Singh Brar took the complainant into his confidence and gave assurance to the complainant to get the mutaton transferred in their names in the record of Revenue Department, as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. Gursewak Singh Brar forged the signature of Gurdial Singh (Bhanja of complainant) and purchased an e-stamp paper worth Rs.4000/- in his name, from the Stamp Vendor Raj Kumar Kakkar, Mini Secretariat, Faridkot and by taking advantage of complainant's physical weakness and disability, he got executed a fake agreement to sell pertaining to land of complainant measuring 88 Kanal 09 Marla situated at Village Naraingarh, District Faridkot in his own name as well as in the name of Judge Singh (pettoner) by conniving with Jagga Singh and Gurmej Singh (both witnesses). In the said agreement, it has been mentoned that they have paid Rs. 1,70,00,000/- to the complainant, whereas no such agreement to sell was ever entered into by the complainant. Gursewak Singh Brar and Judge Singh did not turn up to join the inquiry proceedings despite issuance of notces, however, on the other hand, in order to evade legal proceeding with malafide intenton to usurp the land of complainant, they have filed Suit for Permanent Injuncton i.e. CS/825/2024 ttled as 'Gursewak Singh V/S Gursewak Singh (now complainant)' before the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge. Faridkot. So, accused Gursewak Singh and Judge Singh in connivance with his two other co-accused have commited cheatng with the complainant by taking advantage of complainant's JYOTI physical weakness and disability, got executed a fake agreement to sell of order/judgment. 2 land of complainant measuring 88 Kanal 09 Marla situated at Village Naraingarh, District Faridkot in their own names. The Inquiry Officer having found prima facie offence u/s 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC to be made out against Gursewak Singh, Judge Singh and Jagga Singh and Gurmej Singh (who witnessed the fake agreement to sell) recommended that if approved, FIR should be registered against the above said persons under the above said offences a8er seeking legal opinion from Deputy District Atorney (legal). Faridkot. Whereupon, the SSP, Faridkot sought legal opinion and the Deputy District Atorney (legal), Faridkot gave its opinion that, "I have carefully perused the complaint, enquiry report and enclosed statements and documents. According to the conclusion report, the opposite party Gursewak Singh Brar son of Harbans Singh got executed a frivolous agreement to sell on behalf of complainant Gursewak Singh son of Kashmira Singh pertaining to his land measuring 88 Kanal 09 Marla situated at Village Naraingarh in his own name as well as in the name of Judge Singh son of Ajmer Singh in connivance with Jagga Singh son of Major Singh and Gurmej Singh son of Harbans Singh and received the total amount of Rs.1,70,00,000/- by the complainant. But according to conclusion report, complainant has never entered into any such agreement to sell. In lieu of above, opposite party filed a suit for permanent injuncton in the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge, Faridkot and except above, they have not presented their defence during inquiry. According to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case ttled as 'Mamta Gupta Vs. State of MP & Anr.' the operatve part of the order is as under:- "(9) So far as contenton raised by the counsel for the complainant that criminal proceedings are nothing but an atempt to convert the civil proceedings into criminal proceedings is concerned, it is well-established principle of law that a civil proceeding as well as a criminal proceeding may go on simultaneously and no statute puts an embargo in relaton thereto. A decision in a criminal case is not binding on the civil court. If primary is given to a criminal proceeding, indisputably, civil suit must be determined on its own keeping in view the evidence which has been produced on record before it and not in terms of the evidence brought in the criminal proceeding. Pendency of civil suit has no relevance in the criminal proceedings, therefore, both civil proceedings and criminal proceedings cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegatons made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of JYOTI offence alleged against the complainant, accused prima facie make out in order/judgment. 3 complaint/FIR, then the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted." So, the prima facie offences u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC are found to be made out. The SSP, Faridkot approved the said legal opinion and asked the SHO, P.S. City Faridkot, to register the case against the said persons and investgate. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered against Gursewak Singh, Judge Singh and Jagga Singh and Gurmej Singh."

¶4Counsel for the pettoner prays bail on the ground that the matier has been compromised. He prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditons and contends that further pre-trial incarceraton would cause an irreversible injustce to the pettoner and his family.

¶5Counsel for complainant submits that he has no objecton, if the present petton is allowed and bail is granted to the pettoner because the matier has been compromised between the partes.

¶6State counsel opposes the bail and refers to para 9 of the status report, which reads as follows: "9. A. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER JUDGE SINGH BRAR The present FIR was registered against accused/pettoner Judge Singh Brar and his 3 other co-accused, on the basis of applicaton submited by Gursewak Singh (complainant) and the inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police, (PBI&INV), Faridkot and approval given by the S.S.P., Faridkot. During investgaton, it was duly substantated that accused/pettoner Judge Singh Brar and his other co-accused have commited fraud with the complainant by taking advantage of complainant's physical weakness and disability, got executed a fake agreement to sell of land of complainant measuring 88 Kanal 09 Marla situated at Village Naraingarh, District Faridkot, in the name of Gursewak Singh Brar and Judge Singh Brar (now pettoner) and menton that an amount of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- has been paid as earnest money. Whereas, the complainant had never executed any agreement to sell of his land, nor received any amount, rather the pettoner in connivance with his other co-accused have commited cheatng with the complainant by preparing and using forged documents. So, a specific role is atributed to the pettoner in the commission of present offence. B. PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER.

i) The present FIR was registered against accused/pettoner Judge Singh Brar by name and his 3 other co-accused. order/judgment. 4

ii) Gurdial Singh has clearly stated in his statement under secton 161 Cr.P.C. that he has never purchased any e-stamp paper nor has he signed on any register, rather the e-stamp paper purchased is shown in his name, actually this e-stamp paper has been purchased by Gursevak Singh son of Harbans Singh but he does not know when and from whom Gursevak Singh purchased this e-stamp. He further stated that the signatures present on the said E-stamp paper and the relevant register of the stamp vendor are not his, but they are of some other person.

iii) Accused/pettoner Judge Singh in connivance with his co-accused Gursewak Singh Brar made forged agreement to sell with the complainant by keeping him in darkness and geKng his signatures on the agreement to sell under the pretext of geKng the mutaton of land of complainant sanctoned in his favour. In fact, neither any negotaton, nor any agreement to sell his land was executed by the complainant in favour of accused Gursewak Singh Brar and Judge Singh (present pettoner).

iv) That it is also worth mentoning here that this is a clear case of fraud with the complainant because the accused have said that they gave Rs.1.70 crore to the complainant as earnest money, but, no evidence has been given to this effect and neither anything has come on record as to how they gave this amount to the complainant, what is the mode of payment and also from which source they arranged such a huge amount. Thus, in order to usurp the complainant's land, they kept him in the dark and took him into confidence and made him sign a fake agreement to sell. All these facts prove that all this is the result of a well-planned conspiracy and nothing else. As per the above details, there is sufficient evidence on record against the pettoner and his other co-accused that they have cheated the complainant by preparing forged documents and using them as real with the intenton of illegally grabbing the complainant's land."

¶7Given the nature of allegatons coupled with the fact that partes have compromised the matier, pettoner is enttled for bail. However, it is clarified that this bail order shall neither be considered as a reason to quash the FIR nor shall come as hindrance in the way of the prosecuton or the Court in case, there is violaton of Sectons 216/217 of BNS 2023 (181/182 IPC earlier). REASONING:

¶8Pre-trial incarceraton should not be a replica of post-convicton sentencing. The order/judgment. 5 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, factum of compromise and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justfiability for custodial interrogaton or the pre-trial incarceraton at this stage.

¶10Without 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.

¶11Given 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 matier 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.

¶12While furnishing a personal bond, the pettoner shall menton the following personal identficaton details:

¶1AADHAR number

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

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶13This order is subject to the pettoner's complying with the following terms.

¶14The pettoner is directed to join the investgaton 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 Investgator. 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.JYOTI order/judgment. 6

¶15The 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.

¶16In 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.

¶17This 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.

¶18The concerned trial court is authorized to delete, modify, or relax any of the above conditons and shall be competent to do so in accordance with the law.

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

¶20A 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 atiest it to be a true copy. If the atiestng officer wants to verify its authentcity, such an officer can also verify its authentcity and may download and use the downloaded copy for atiestng bonds.

¶21Pe..on allowed in terms mentoned above. All pending applicatons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

17.02.2025 Jyot-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 7

284 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.02.2025 Judge Singh Brar ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. S.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the pettoner. Mr. Aadesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate, for the complainant. ****