MALKIAT SINGH @ KADDU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of three petitions for grant of pre -arrest bail bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. M -24871, M -28651 and M -29559 of 2011. The FIR was registered at the instance of Chanan Singh, complainant, alleging that he was introduced by Manjit Singh and Harjinder Singh, property dealers to Satpal Singh as he wanted to purchase some property. Satpal Singh had allegedly entered into an agreement of sale on receipt of a sum of Rs. 50 lacs as earnest money from Mohinder Singh, the original owner of the land. Manjit Singh and Harjinder Singh, property dealers, had allegedly met Jarnail Singh son of the original owner Mohinder Singh who had conform that his father Mohinder Singh had entered into an agreement of sale with Satpal. The complainant alleged that as a matter of fact no agreement of sale had been entered into between Satpal and Mohinder Singh. Chanan Singh was persuaded on the basis of forged agreement of sale to agree to purchase the land of Mohinder Singh. In the said fraudulent deal, sum of Rs. 50 lacs was distributed amongst Manjit Singh, petitioner who is stated to be co -brother of Jarnail Singh. Rs. 2 lacs had allegedly been received by Malkiat Singh. A sum of Rs. 2 lacs by Gurdev Singh, a sum of Rs. 2 lacs by Kulwant Singh, and a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs by Harjinder Singh. Mr. T.S. Sangha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners Malkiat Singh and Harjinder Singh has submitted that the petitioners have been involved in the case on the basis of their alleged confessional statements before Deputy Superintendent of Police to the effect that they had also received money as mentioned above. The admissibility of said statement has been vehemently questioned. It has further been argued that Malkiat Singh being co -brother of Jarnail Singh when came to know about the fraud being played by Jarnail Singh, he cautioned purchaser Chanan Singh not to enter into the deal. Since Chanan Singh came to know about the fraud being played by him at the instance of petitioner Malkiat Singh, he is entitled to the concession of pre -arrest bail. It is claimed that he has not received any money as has been determined during the course of investigation on the basis of the alleged confessional statement before the police.

(2.) SO far as petitioner Harjinder Singh is concerned, he is a property dealer who had allegedly received a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs from the sum of Rs. 50/ - lacs which was allegedly paid by Chanan Singh to Satpal who claimed that there was an agreement of sale in his favour executed by the original owner Mohinder Singh. It has been claimed that both Malkiat Singh and Harjinder Singh have joined investigation and brought true facts to the notice of the investigating agency, they may be granted the concession of pre -arrest bail.

(3.) STATEMENT of Manjit Singh during the course of inquiry has also been recorded. Said Manjit Singh, a property dealer has named the petitioners to be property dealers. He has stated in his statement to the police that both the petitioners i.e. Dev Singh and Kulwant Singh had contacted Manjit Singh and asked him to introduce a person who would enter into a dubious deal of agreement of sale. They had allegedly received money which had been extracted from Chanan Singh, complainant, in a fraudulent manner.