4.2010 Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Mr. Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-17335 of 2009 filed by Dinesh Kumar son of Ganpat Rai and Bhag Singh son of Bant Singh and Criminal Misc. No.M-15696 of 2009 filed by Swaran Singh son of Bhag Singh. The respective petitioners pray for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 15.11.2008 at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code. Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15696/2009 etc. [2] The facts of the case are that Gopal Singh had three sons, namely, Kapoor Singh, Surjit Singh and Sampuran Singh. Sampuran Singh died issueless. Kapoor Singh, whose property is in dispute, had settled in Kenya. He died in Kenya on 15.2.1995. He left behind one son Sital Singh and his widow Chand Kaur. Chand Kaur died on 21.3.2000. Sital Singh died on 1.9.2002. Said Sital Singh was married to Nora Stella. Sital Singh and Nora Stella had a daughter, namely, Anjandeep Kaur who is the complainant in the case. Anjandeep Kaur (complainant) lodged FIR No.221 dated 15.11.2008 at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana against (1) Jasmail Singh son of Surjit Singh; (2) Rajinder Kaur wife of Maggar Singh son of Surjit Singh; (3) Gurdev Kaur wife of Surjit Singh. (Surjit Singh is the brother of Kapoor Singh). (4) Avtar Singh, Kanungo, Janar Pind; (5) Ranjit Singh, Patwari, Village Parwal; (6) Dinesh Kumar; (7) Bhag Singh (petitioners No.1 and 2 in criminal Misc. No.M-17335 of 2009); (8) Swaran Singh (petitioner in criminal Misc. No.M-15696 of 2009) and others involved in the transfer of land measuring 52 Kanals 2 Marlas situated at Sahnewal Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana in favour of Jasmail Singh and late Maggar Singh sons of Surjit Singh in connivance with each other and by using forged documents. Thereby committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the FIR that land measuring 52 Kanals 2 Marlas situated at Sahnewal Kalan was transferred in favour of Jasmail Singh and Maghar Singh sons of Surjit Singh (brother of Kapoor Singh). It is alleged by the complainant Anjandeep Kaur that her grand-father Kapoor Singh had executed a Will dated 30.8.1991 in favour of her father Sital Singh and her mother Chand Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15696/2009 etc. [3] Kaur wife of Sital Singh. Chand Kaur mother of the complainant died on

21.3.2000 leaving behind complainant's father, namely, Sital Singh as her only legal heir. He (Sital Singh) died on 1.9.2002. During his life time, Sital Singh executed a Will dated 23.8.2002 in respect of his entire property in favour of the complainant Anjandeep Kaur and his wife Nora Stella in equal shares. Therefore, the complainant and Nora Stella became owners of the property including the land measuring 52 Kanals 2 Marlas. However, Jasmail Singh and late Maghar Singh sons of Surjit Singh (brother of Kapoor Singh) by stating wrong facts and in connivance with the other accused including the revenue officials got mutation of the said land measuring 52 Kanals 2 Marlas sanctioned in their favour on 28.9.2005 by producing a forged death certificate and a forged Will dated 8.8.1994 of Kapoor Singh. Kapoor Singh had a British passport and as per the entries in the passport he last visited India on 7.11.1988 and he left on 2.12.1988. Thereafter, he never came to India. It is alleged that the accused had produced a forged death certificate showing the death of Kapoor Singh to have occurred on 15.10.1995 whereas he died on 15.2.1995. Besides, in the mutation it is mentioned that Kapoor Singh had one son, namely, Sital Singh who died and left behind his widow Anju and daughter Baby. This was also factually incorrect as the nick name of the complainant is Anju and she was the daughter of Sital Singh and not his wife. The wife of Sital Singh was Nora Stella (mother of complainant). Thus by stating wrong facts and by producing a forged death certificate and a forged Will dated

8.8.1994, the accused in connivance with each other transferred the land measuring 52 Kanals 2 Marlas in the name of accused Jasmail Singh and Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15696/2009 etc. [4] late Maghar Singh. After the death of Maghar Singh they effected transfer in the name of Gurdev Kaur (mother of Maghar Singh) and Rajinder Kaur (wife of Maghar Singh). Jasmail Singh had sold 26 Kanals 1 Marla of land out of the land measuring 52 Kanals 2 Marla vide sale deed dated 6.7.2006 to Dinesh Kumar and Bhag Singh (petitioners No.1 and 2 respectively in Criminal Misc. No.M-17335 of 2009). The land had been transferred to defeat the rights of the complainant. A request was made for taking action in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the land has been purchased by the petitioners Dinesh Kumar and Bhag Singh after 12 years of the death of Kapoor Singh and the petitioners are bona fide purchasers. It is submitted that they are not, in any manner, responsible for the forgery and nothing is to be recovered from them. Besides, they have joined the investigation and even in future would do so. It is also submitted that civil litigation is pending between the parties. In response, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have referred to the inquiry report dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure-R.1) filed with the affidavit of Shri Vikas Garg, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana in which it has inter alia been observed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (East), Ludhiana that Swaran Singh (petitioner in criminal Misc. No.M- 15696 of 2009) stated that Dinesh Kumar (petitioner No.1 in Criminal Misc. No.M-17335 of 2009) and he himself in the year 2006 purchased the land measuring 6½ Acres (52 Kanals 2 Marlas), which adjoins their land from Jasmail Singh and Maghar Singh sons of Surjit Singh. This land was that of Kapoor Singh, who was residing at Kenya. This land was being cultivated by Jangir Singh brother of Kapoor Singh and then his son Surjit Singh and Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15696/2009 etc. [5] then his sons Jasmail Singh and Maghar Singh. It is stated that on the asking of Bhag Singh (petitioner No.2 in Criminal Misc. No.M-17335 of 2009) and after verifying the record from the Patwari, the land was purchased on 6.7.2006. The Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Ludhiana after conducting an inquiry had reached the conclusion that after the death of Kapoor Singh his relative Jasmail Singh and Maghar Singh had prepared false documents and in connivance with the Halqa Patwari Ranjit Singh and Kanungo Avtar Singh besides, Bhag Singh, Swaran Singh, Dinesh Kumar etc. had got ownership of the land measuring 6½ Acres (52 Kanals 2 Marlas) of Kapoor Singh transferred in their favour and got the sale deed executed in favour of Swaran Singh and Dinesh Kumar. In this manner, the allegations levelled by the complainant are established and a case for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC is made out. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the case of the prosecution is that the land measuring 6½ Acres (52 Kanals 2 Marlas) was owned by Kapoor Singh who died at Kenya on 5.2.1995. Kapoor Singh had one son Sital Singh who was married to Chand Kaur. Sital Singh died on 1.9.2002. During his life time, Sital Singh had executed a Will dated 23.8.2002 in favour of his wife Nora Stella and his daughter Anjandeep Kaur. Jasmail Singh and Maghar Singh, who are the brother's sons of Kapoor Singh had got the land transferred in their favour on the basis of a Will dated 8.8.1994 of Kapoor Singh and thereafter sold the land to the petitioners Dinesh Kumar and Swaran Singh on

6.7.2006. The question as to whether the petitioners are bona fide purchasers is to be considered and gone into by the Civil Court and in Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15696/2009 etc. [6] proceedings for consideration of bail this aspect is not to be gone into. It may, however, be noticed that the petitioners have purchased the land of Kapoor Singh which adjoins their land. Therefore, they in all probability knew the actual state of affairs and even though the land was being cultivated by Jasmail Singh and Maghar Singh sons of Surjit Singh, however, it would be quite evident that the petitioners knew about the actual and factual position as regards the ownership of Kapoor Singh; besides, also the fact that Kapoor Singh was married and had a son Sital Singh who was also married and had a daughter Anjandeep Kaur. In order to ascertain the actual position and the role of the petitioners in the purchase of land measuring 6½ Acres (52 Kanals 2 Marlas) the custodial interrogation would be required. Swaran Singh in his statement recorded before the Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Ludhiana did state that the land belongs to Kapoor Singh who was living in Kenya and Kapoor Singh had a brother, namely, Jangir Singh who was cultivating the land after him Surjit Singh cultivated the land. Thereafter Jasmail Singh and Maghar Singh cultivated the land. Besides, Swaran Singh stated that he had purchased the land on the asking of Bhag Singh (petitioner) and after verifying the records from the Patwari. In the facts and circumstances, at this stage, it cannot be said that the purchasers Swaran Singh and Dinesh Kumar (petitioners) are totally strangers to the land that has been purchased. They in fact own the adjoining land that has been purchased and, therefore, appear to be quite well aware of the actual position. Besides, Bhag Singh (petitioner) is the father of Swaran Singh (petitioner) on whose asking the land was purchased. It is well known that considerations governing the grant of pre- Cr. Misc. Nos.M-15696/2009 etc. [7] arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In a case where pre-arrest bail is sought, the advantage of custodial interrogation of eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for the grant of pre- arrest bail is made out. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. April 7, 2010. *hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge