VINAY v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR
Case Details
CRM-M-54258-2024 -1- 211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54258-2024 Date of decision: 03.04.2025 VINAY ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Harita Panthey, Advocate for the pe(cid:24)(cid:24)oner.
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) FIR No. 194 Dated Police Station Sections 21.09.2024 City Rajpura, District 420 IPC Pa(cid:24)ala 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 29 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply dated 10.12.2024filed by the State, which reads as follows: "xxx xxx xxx xxx 3. That the brief facts of the present case/FIR No. 194 (supra) are that a complaint dated 07.06.2024 was moved by Sagar Kapoor (complainant/respondent no. 2) before Senior Superintendent of Police, Pa,ala, against Girdhari Lal Mehta and Vinay Kumar (present pe,,oner) with the allega,ons that he made a deal of House No. 2124 measuring 53.43 square yards at Rajpura Town, which was sold by property dealer Girdhari Lal Mehta. On 19.01.2024, Girdhari Lal Mehta obtained a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rs. 4,50,000/- cash and Rs. 2,00,000/- through bank) as earnest money. The owner of the said house was Vinay Kumar (present pe,,oner). Vinay Kumar (pe,,oner) and Girdhari Lal Mehta were close friends. Girdhari Lal Mehta made an agreement to sell dated 19.01.2024 for Rs. 26,25,000/- and date for execu,on of sale Renu Bala 2025.04.07 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-54258-2024 -2- deed was fixed for 20.05.2024. A;er few days, the respondent no. 2 came to know that there was a court case pending on the said house. Upon going to the court, respondent no. 2 came into light that pe,,oner had sold the said house earlier also. In this way, the pe,,oner in connivance with Girdhari Lal Mehta cheated him to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/-. On 10.05.2024, the respondent no. 2 called them but they did not listen hi. Therea;er, they abused and extended threats to the respondent no. 2. On 20.05.2024, the respondent no. 2 went to the office of registrar for the execu,on of sale deed but the pe,,oner and Girdhari Lal Mehta and Vinay Kumar (pe,,oner) neither answered the call nor came present at the office of registrar. 4. That enquiry of the said representa,on of respondent no. 2 was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, PBI/Special Crime, Pa,ala, who a;er conduc,ng thorough and detailed enquiry, found that pe,,oner entered into agreement to sell of his house no. 2124 with respondent no. 2 for a sum of Rs. 26,25,000/- through property dealer Girdhari Lal Mehta on 19.01.2024. Pe,,oner received a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- from respondent no. 2 as earnest money and the date for execu,on of sale deed was fixed for 20.05.2024. Therea;er, on the date fixed i.e. 20.05.2024, the respondent no.2 reached at Tehsil a;er arranging the remaining balance for the execu,on of sale deed but the pe,,oner never came present therein." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's vision is only 10%. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions that petitioner shall surrender his driving license, if any and shall not drive any vehicle and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. Counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant was well aware of the property as his office is adjacent to the said property and no fraud was played upon him and he was aware of litigation. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply and submits that as per the doctor opinion, according to vision acuity, petitioner's temporary disability is 60% and his treatment is going on from Nehru Hospital, PGIMER, Chandigarh. 6. 7. Complainant's counsel opposes bail on the same ground. It would be appropriate to refer the following portion of the reply dated 10.12.2024 which reads as follow:- Renu Bala 2025.04.07 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "xxx xxx xxxx xxx Role of the pe,,oner: That despite having knowledge that pe,,oner's CRM-M-54258-2024 -3- uncle Subhash Kumar had sold his house no.2124 to one Tarun Bha,a and having the knowledge that there was case pending on it, the pe,,oner entered into agreement to sell of his house no.2124 with respondent no.2 on 19.01.2024 and obtained a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as earnest money. Evidence against pe,,oner: That the complainant/respondent no.2 has specifically named pe,,oner in his complaint. Moreover, the pe,,oner was in knowledge of the execu,on applica,on qua the property in ques,on pending before Ld. Civil Court Rajpura and the same is evident from the applica,on under Sec,on 21 rule 29 CPC filed by pe,,oner before Ld. Civil Court on 23.04.2024. The copy of the applica,on is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1 for the kind considera,on of this Hon'ble Court." REASONING: 8. Complainant was well aware of property, moreover, he has every right to get the sale deed executed through Civil Court in accordance with law. Petitioner's 40% blindness also made case for bail in his favour, and he has taken money for his treatment. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. 9. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 10. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 11. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 12. Renu Bala 2025.04.07 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. CRM-M-54258-2024 -4- 13. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 14. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 15. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 16. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 17. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 18. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 19. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
Decision
disposed of. 03.04.2025 renubala Renu Bala 2025.04.07 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No ( ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE