NRIPENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case taken up through video conferencing. By this common order, I intend to dispose of two petitions for grant of pre-arrest bail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., bearing CRM-M-44129-2019 filed by Nirpendra Pal Singh, aged 80 years, s/o Mohinder Pal Singh, r/o Creg Top Estate Vinsat Hill, Mussorie (Uttrakhand) and CRM-M-53577-2019 filed by Kanwaljit Singh Bhinder, aged about 68 years, s/o Nishan Singh Bhinder, resident of H.No.138, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh, both of them being accused in FIR No. 117 dated 14.5.2019, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC , registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case, as per the prosecution version are that criminal machinery in this case was set into motion by the complainant Ashok Kumar s/o Om Parkash r/o House no. 104- E, Partap Nagar, Patiala and others, who in the written complaint submitted by them to the police stated that land mafia comprising Narpinderpal Singh and legal representatives of late Sh. Mahinder Pal Singh, resident of Craig Top Estate Mussorie, in collusion with Kanwaljit Singh Bhinder s/o Late Nishan Singh Bhinder r/o House No. 138, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh, played fraud with more than 70 purchasers of the total suit land measuring 156 kanals 5 Marla, situated at village Arian Majra, Tehsil and District Patiala, by making the sale of land for the second time. Earlier it had been sold to Surjit Singh and Ballabh Dass, residents of Ludhiana, in the form of General Power of Attorney with absolute powers of sale and they further collusively sold the land to Surinderpal Singh and Satish Kumar as General Power of Attorney and cheated them after the decree dated 30.3.1989 concealing their best title of purchasers (GPA, sale agreement and receipt). The decree dated 8.1.2009 was set aside. There Narinderpal Singh had not asked for possession in the declaratory suit. Such relief was not granted to them, but they made an attempt for taking possession after 13 years of filing of declaratory suit was made but such prayer was declined by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala in the year 2004 and such action was not challenged further. Realising that they were having title only and not the possession, they filed an application for restitution under Section 144 CPC, by seeking possession from 70 purchasers, which was on the basis of false ground and documents. Surinderpal Singh etc. alongwith Harbans Lal etc. had filed two regular appeals in the High Court, against the order passed by the Appellate Court. In the meanwhile, Narinderpal Singh and Kanwaljit Singh Bhinder approached the purchasers and convinced them that Surinderpal Singh and Satish Kumar had agreed to withdraw their respective appeals and to surrender their possession without any consideration, except the court expenses. It was agreed that amicable settlement would be done with all the purchasers or whosoever is concerned with the land measuring 156 Kanals 5 Marla. Accordingly, Kanwaljit Singh Bhinder was appointed as General Power of Attorney and Narinder Pal Singh as Mediator. The appeals were withdrawn from the High Court. Loss was caused to the Public Exchequer, in as much as, sale deeds were executed showing the land to be meant for agricultural purposes, though it was of commercial nature, located within the Municipal limits. Thus, loss caused to Public Exchequer was to the tune of Rs. 1 crore. After registration of the FIR, investigation in the case started.

(3.) Apprehending their arrest in this case, petitioners had approached the Court of Sessions at Patiala, by filing application for grant of anticipatory bail. Their such applications which were assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, were declined, as such they have approached this court, craving for grant of similar relief, which request is being opposed on behalf of the State counsel and complainant through counsel.