Gurjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2024

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024247




220                                                      2024:PHHC:024247

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-M-8418-2024
                                         DECIDED ON: 21.02.2024

GURJIT SINGH
                                                            .....PETITIONER

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                          .....RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:    Mr. Akhil Ahuja, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with
            Mr. Sidharth Chawla, Advocate
            for the complainant.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section

439 Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.265, dated

01.12.2021 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC,

registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the instant FIR

is a result of execution of agreement to sell pertaining to the land measuring

3 kanal 7 marlas, which was purchased by the father of the petitioner and on

account of the said agreement to sell, the allegations pertaining to the

offences under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, which are actually not

made out, as is evident from the version narrated in the FIR itself inasmuch

as the issue of genuinity of the document cannot be ascertained by Civil

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:39:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024247

CRM-M-8418-2024 -2-

Court, as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner while

pressing for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

3. Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

complainant vehemently contends that the instant case is not pertaining to

the agreement to sell but on account of forgery and fabrication of the

registered sale deed itself, which is pertaining to the year 1981.

4. In the light of above, Mr. Lakhanpal, Senior counsel further

asserts that it would be unjust to grant regular bail to the petitioner wherein

the petitioner has antecedents of such criminal nature being involved in other

FIRs as well, which are FIR No.7, dated 18.05.2017, under Sections 420,

467, 468, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1) D read with Section 3(2) of PC Act,

Police Station Vigilance, FIR No.242, dated 17.10.2021, under Sections 420,

465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nabha and FIR

No.19, dated 05.03.2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC,

registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha.

5. In those cases, the petitioner is on regular bail and on

anticipatory bail and civil suit for specific performance is also pending in

one of the FIR.

6. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of

the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record. He on instructions

from ASI Ripan Kumar, submits that it is a case of fabrication and forgery of

the official document i.e. sale deed registered with the office of Registrar

Sales and an amount of Rs.25 lacs is involved in the transaction via

agreement to sell which alleged to have been executed by the father of the

complainant. He further asserts that the petitioner is involved in number of

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:39:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024247

CRM-M-8418-2024 -3-

cases of similar nature and on that ground, he seeks dismissal of the instant

petition.

7. Be that as it may, however, this Court cannot ignore the fact that

the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 years, 02

months and 21 days, wherein charges were framed on 18.10.2023 and out of

total 11 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date, which is

suffice enough to infer for this Court that conclusion of trial will take long

time.

8. This Court is sanguine of the fact that according to the

proposition settled by the Apex Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, that keeping somebody

behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to

infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of

Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is

an exception”.

9. As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the

petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order

of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as “Baljinder Singh

alias Rock vs. State of Punjab” decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while

referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no

doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner

are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the

appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with

reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the

evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to

the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 08:39:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024247

CRM-M-8418-2024 -4-

in all probability would lend the petitioner in a situation of denial of the

concession of bail.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the

petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail and

surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,

concerned.

11. In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.

12. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall

not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.





                                                (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
21.02.2024                                            JUDGE
Poonam Negi


Whether speaking/reasoned               Yes/No
Whether reportable                      Yes/No




                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024247

                                       4 of 4
                    ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 08:39:30 :::
 

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

VISHAL SAINI ADVOCATE