Crl. Misc. No. M-17970 of 2017 [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Crl. Misc. No. M-17970 of 2017
Date of Decision : October 10, 2017
Paramjit Singh and others ……………………………………. Petitioners
State of Punjab…………………………………………………….. Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Sahil Puri, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
for the complainant.
LISA GILL, J. (Oral)
The petitioners seek the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR
No.116 dated 25.04.2017 under Sections 323, 354, 447, 452, 506 IPC
registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala.
As per the allegations in the FIR the complainant agreed to sell
her house to petitioner No.1-Paramjit Singh for a sum of `25 lakhs. A sum
of `50,000/- was paid to the complainant as earnest money. The entire
transaction, it is submitted, was verbal. No written agreement was drawn up.
Remaining balance was to be paid within one month i.e. by 01.11.2016. The
balance payment was not made despite repeated requests by the
complainant. It is further stated in the FIR that when the complainant was
1 of 4
14-10-2017 02:18:32 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-17970 of 2017 [ 2 ]
all alone in her house on 20.04.2017 all the accused persons forcibly entered
her house. They physically assaulted her and used abusive language.
Specific allegations attracting the rigours of Section 354 IPC have been
levelled against petitioner No.1. It is further stated that the petitioners
forcibly took over the possession of her house. The complainant was
rescued on her raising hue and cry by Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Mahinder
Singh and Goldy Bachni. Her husband, in the meantime, returned and
admitted her at Civil Hospital. Above said FIR was registered on the basis
of this statement
At the time of issuance of notice of motion, contentions on
behalf of the petitioners were noted as under:-
“Counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that from
reading of the FIR, it is apparent that there is dispute between
the parties with regard to an agreement of sale qua house
owned by Rajwant Kaur – complainant. It is further submitted
that in the occurrence, one of the petitioners namely Kulvir
Kaur also sustained injuries and her medico legal report is
Annexure P3. It is further submitted that the allegations qua
offence under Section 354 IPC are against Pramjit Singh –
petitioner No.1. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
required and they are ready to join investigation and co-
Interim relief was granted to petitioners No. 2 to 6 and not to
It is submitted that petitioners No. 2 to 6 have since joined
investigation pursuant to interim order dated 19.05.2017 passed by this
2 of 4
14-10-2017 02:18:33 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-17970 of 2017 [ 3 ]
Court. They are ready and willing to face the proceedings and they will not
misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if confirmed.
In respect to petitioner No.1, it is stated that the transaction in
question is purely civil in nature. No recovery is to be effected from him.
Therefore, the concession of anticipatory bail be afforded to him as well.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on a pointed query, informs
that the possession of the house in question is with petitioner No.1 pursuant
to an oral agreement of sale of the said house with the complainant for a
sum of `19,70,000/-. A sum of ` 2,10,000/- in various instalments was
handed over to the complainant though there is admittedly no documentary
proof of the same. Pursuant to the said amount of ` 2,10,000/- being given
to the complainant, possession of the property in question was in fact
handed over by the complainant herself. No such incident as mentioned ever
occurred. It is in fact the complainant who was the aggressor and she tried
to re-possess the property in question. It is to be noted that there is no
documentary proof whatsoever of handing over of the possession of the
property in question by the complainant herself on receipt of the said
amount of `2,10,000/-.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI
Balwinder Singh, Police Station City Kapurthala, verifies that petitioners
No. 2 to 6 have indeed joined investigation pursuant to interim orders
passed by this Court. It is submitted that it appears strange and opposed to
all probability that possession of property worth `20-25 lakhs was handed
over for a mere sum of `2,10,000/- and that too without any documentary
proof. However, in respect to petitioners No. 2 to 6 it is verified that their
custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from
3 of 4
14-10-2017 02:18:33 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-17970 of 2017 [ 4 ]
them. They are not reported to be involved in any other criminal case.
There is no allegation that the petitioners are likely to abscond or that they
are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts before the
learned trial Court, if released on bail.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, it is considered just and expedient to allow this petition qua
petitioners No. 2 to 6. Consequently, order dated 19.05.2017 qua
petitioners No. 2 to 6 is made absolute.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the
allegations in the FIR, no ground is made out for the grant of anticipatory
bail to petitioner No.1. The petition is accordingly dismissed qua petitioner
( LISA GILL )
Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable: Yes / No
4 of 4
14-10-2017 02:18:33 :::