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 :::
[ad_2]