An amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs not recovered cannot be made a ground for disentitling to grant of Anticipatory Bail in asmuch as the the petitioner cannot be forced to get such amount recovered as the same would virtually amount to forcing of admission of guilt: Anticipatory Bail for the offence under section 420, 406, 120-B IPC granted by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Anticipatory Bail

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh

CRM-M-31552-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-15.11.2022
Monu Pal … Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab … Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Anoop Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab,
assisted by ASI Gurinder Singh.


GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)

  1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.64, dated 16.6.2022, Police Station Bahawala, District Fazilka, Punjab, under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
  2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, the following order was passed on 22.7.2022:
    “The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.64, dated 16.6.2022, Police Station Bahawala, District Fazilka, Punjab,
    under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Jatgtar Singh, wherein it is alleged that he knew Sonu, who induced him into buying land and said Sonu alongwith Gurmail Singh showed a piece of land to him on 3.10.2020 and stated that the said land belongs to Navrinder Singh, who had entered into an agreement with Gursewak Singh
    for sale of the same and that now the said Gursewak Singh further wanted to sell it of. The complainant, being taken in by the said representation, consented for holding a meeting, which was
    arranged and upon seeing the land and discussing the matter with Gursewak Singh and Navrinder Singh, a token amount of Rs.5 lakhs was transferred to the bank account of Monu (brother of
    Sonu). It is further alleged that on 5.10.2020 an agreement for sale
    of 15 Kanals of land was entered into and the petitioner paid an
    amount of Rs.25 lakhs in cash apart from another amount of Rs.8
    lakhs by way of cheque and it was agreed that the sale-deed would
    be executed by December 2020. The complainant alleged that
    subsequently another amount of Rs.7 lakhs was paid and that he
    paid a total amount of Rs.52 lakhs. It is alleged that at the time of
    executing the agreement to sell, Pritpal Singh and Ranjit Kumar
    attested the said agreement, which was Notorized by Rupinder
    Singh, Advocate.
    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR there is
    nothing to suggest that the petitioner had held out any
    representation to the complainant or had induced him in any
    manner and that even if it is assumed that some amount had been
    transferred into his bank account, it was at the instance of other coaccused i.e. his brother Sonu and that he had never asked the
    complainant to transfer any amount.
    Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
    petitioner was neither present at the time when token amount of
    Rs.5 lakhs was paid i.e. on 3.10.2020, nor even on the date when
    agreement for sale was executed i.e. on 5.10.2020.
    Notice of motion for 15.11.2022.
    Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on
    interim bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and suretybonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer.
    However, the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called
    upon to do so and cooperate with the Arresting/Investigating
    Officer and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section
    438(2) Cr.P.C.”
  3. Learned State counsel, upon instructions from ASI Gurinder Singh, has
    informed that although the petitioner has joined investigation but he has not
    got the amount of Rs.5 lakhs recovered.
  4. The contention of the learned State counsel that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs has
    not been recovered, cannot be made a ground for disentitling the petitioner to
    grant of anticipatory bail inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be forced to get
    any such amount recovered as the same would virtually amount to forcing of
    admission of guilt. In any case, having regard to the facts and circumstances
    of the case and also in view of the reasons recorded in order dated 22.7.2022
    and the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation and is not stated to be
    involved in any other case, the petition is accepted and the interim directions
    issued by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2022 are hereby made absolute,
    subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when
    called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall
    also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
    15.11.2022 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )

Advocate Anoop Verma, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

Best Advocate Chandigarh

Best Advocate Chandigarh

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: