Criminal Misc. No.M-8997 of 2010 v. State of Punjab

Mr. Gaurave Bhayyia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 85 registered on 12.5.2007 (Annexure-P.2) at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga for the offence under Section 382 IPC. The FIR (Annexure-P.2) has been registered in the case on the statement of Baldev Singh son of Rattan Singh. It has been alleged by the complainant that his brother-in-law, namely, Joginder Singh and his wife Naseeb Kaur and their daughter Harjot Kaur had purchased land to the extent of ¾ share out of land bearing Khasra No.373 (2-7) situated at Fatehgarh Kohwana from Hardeep Singh son of Sohan Singh, Manvinder Kaur and Harvinder Kaur Sandhu daughters of Sohan Singh through their general power of attorney holder Gurnam Singh (petitioner). Registered sale deeds No.731, 732 and 734 dated 20.5.2002 were executed and registered with the Sub Registrar, Dhramkot. Mutation had also been Cr. Misc. No.M-8997 of 2010 [2] sanctioned. The vendees, therefore, became owners to the extent of ¾ share and possession is also with them. On 8.5.2007, the general power of attorney holder Gurnam Singh (petitioner) along with Ashok Kumar and other 3-4 unidentified persons started removing the doors and almirahs of the Kothi and the girders of the room situated abutting the Kothi by demolishing the roof. They also removed the hand-pump and sanitary pipes fitted in the Kothi. The complainant was in possession of the power of attorney of his brother-in-law Joginder Singh and sister-in-law Naseeb Kaur regarding their property. When the complainant came to know of the damage being done, he and his son Kulbir Singh and wife of the complainant Gurpal Kaur approached Gurnam Singh (petitioner) so as to restrain him from causing damage to the Kothi. On this the petitioner and Ashok Kumar who were having Kappas in their hands threatened that they may get out of the Kothi otherwise they would be eliminated. Due to fear the complainant left the Kothi and came out. It is alleged that the petitioner took away 12 doors of the Kothi, one big almirah, two iron gates, 12 girders of the rooms constructed outside the Kothi; besides, sanitary pipes and hand-pump on a canter vehicle which had been brought by them. The allegations against the petitioner are that he being the general power of attorney holder of the vendor Hardeep Singh, Manvinder Kaur and Harvinder Kaur Sandhu son and daughters respectively of Sohan Singh had sold the agricultural land along with the Kothi (residential house) and then removed the articles from the residential house. The case of the petitioner is that only the agricultural land was sold but by misrepresentation the complainant was also claiming ownership of the Cr. Misc. No.M-8997 of 2010 [3] Kothi and has alleged that the petitioner along with Ashok Kumar entered the Kothi, damaged the property and stole away some goods. It is submitted that the petitioner is well settled in U.K. and has never been involved in any criminal activities through out his life. At the time of motion hearing on 19.4.2010, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the incident of removing the doors and almirahs of the Kothi and the girders of the room by demolishing the wall had occurred on 8.5.2007 whereas the petitioner went abroad on 9.5.2007 and thereafter the FIR was registered on 12.5.2007. Besides, the petitioner had sold only a share in Khasra No.373 (2-7) vide sale deed dated 20.5.2002 (Annexure-P.2/A). The purchaser Joginder Singh in an affidavit attached as Annexure-P.1 with Criminal Misc. No.M-41484 of 2007 had accepted the position that he had not purchased the residential property. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 18.11.2009 (Annexure- P.7) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga. However, it was submitted that the order declaring him PO was inconsequential as the petitioner was abroad before registration of FIR. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he (petitioner) was ready to join the investigation. Learned counsel for the State was not able to dispute the fact that the purchaser in an affidavit attached as Annexure-P.1 with Criminal Misc. No.M-41484 of 2007 had accepted the position that he had not purchased the residential property. In the afore-noticed circumstances, it was observed that it is to be ascertained whether the petitioner can be said to have committed any offence by removing the doors and almirahs of the Cr. Misc. No.M-8997 of 2010 [4] rooms of the residential property which is not said to be part of the sale deed dated 20.5.2002 (Annexure-P.2/A). Accordingly, the petitioner was admitted to interim bail till the adjourned date subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. It was ordered that he shall join investigation as and when called and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Besides, he shall surrender his passport and shall not leave the country without permission of the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence attributed to him. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has not joined the investigation till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition was filed on 23.3.2010 and thereafter, the petitioner had to go abroad as he had to have his knee replacement surgery. It is submitted that his Orthopaedic pre-operative assessment appointment was fixed for 27.4.2010 at the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals. Thereafter, his operation was conducted in May

2010. It may be noticed that the petitioner was in the country when he filed the application for pre-arrest bail and despite being granted interim bail on 19.4.2010 with the direction to join the investigation and surrender his passport and also not leave the country, he has not joined the investigation and has also left the country. He has also not made any contact with the Police authorities regarding the pending investigation. In the afore-noticed circumstances, no ground for grant of pre- Cr. Misc. No.M-8997 of 2010 [5] arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. The petitioner may, however, file a fresh petition when he returns. May 25, 2010. *hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge