SARBJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 433 dtd. 8/12/2021 registered under Ss. 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar.

(2.) The FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of complaint filed by one Balvir Singh who has levelled allegations to the effect that he wanted to purchase a residential plot in SAS Nagar and regarding the same, he met the present petitioner, who had informed him that he was the owner of one residential plotmeasuring 150 square yards and the petitioner showed the complainant a letter of intent for allotment of the residential plot measuring 150 square yards through land pooling scheme at Sector 90 SAS Nagar, Mohali which was issued by GMADA in the name of the petitioner and as per the said letter of intent, it was mentioned that the said plot was transferable and the petitioner had allegedly shown him the original letter of intent and thus, after considering the same, the complainant entered into an agreement to sell dtd. 20/9/2021 with respect to the said plot for a total sale consideration of Rs.47.00 lacs and out of the same, Rs.20.00 lacs were paid in cash to the petitioner. The last date of the execution of the said sale deed was 20/10/2021. It is further alleged that at the time of signing of the agreement, the complainant had asked the petitioner to handover the original letter of intent issued by GMADA but the same was not done. It has been further alleged that after much persuasion, the complainant was able to get the photocopy of the same and on an enquiry made by the complainant to GMADA, it was learnt that no such letter had been issued by GMADA to the petitioner and the petitioner was not the owner of the plot as mentioned in the agreement to sell and thus, the petitioner had cheated the complainant. Consequently, the present FIR has been registered.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is a peace loving citizen and has been working as a General Manager with the Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh. It is submitted that the petitioner had got registeredan FIR bearing No. 81 dtd. 9/8/2018 (Annexure P-4) under Ss. 307, 384, 342, 323 and 120-B IPC and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act against Deepak Mishra, Raju Dhillon, Suri and some unknown persons on the allegations that the said persons had come to meet the petitioner at his house in Sector 15-C, Chandigarh with respect to a flat in Valencia Apartments regarding which the sale deed had already been executed and also wanted to execute a sale deed with respect to an industrial plot, which was owned by the petitioner and his mother and on account of reluctance shown by the petitioner regarding the same, the said persons threatened the petitioner with a pistol and beat him up and forcibly made him sign 15 sets of original documents which also included revenue receipts and also made the mother of the petitioner sign on the same. It is further argued that the petitioner did not sign one of the sets and even the mother of the petitioner had not signed the said set so, the said persons had forged the signatures of his mother on the said paper in order to complete the documentation and for the same, second FIR No. 190 dtd. 8/9/2019 was registered under Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC (Annexure P-5). With respect to the petitioner having been beaten up by the abovesaid accused persons, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the photographs Annexure P-3, a perusal of which shows that several injuries were inflicted upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has been receiving suspicious calls from 5 different mobile numbers and withrespect to the same, a conversation chart has been prepared and annexed as Annexure P-2 alongwith the present petition and in the same, the details of the conversation have also been given. It is argued that a perusal of the said conversation chart would show that enquiries were being made with respect to the flat owned by the petitioner and regarding which, it had been stated that the same had been sold by the petitioner whereas, the petitioner has never sold the flat in Valencia Apartments. It is submitted that the said 15 sets of blank documents which had been forcibly taken from the petitioner have apparently been used by the complainant who, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, also belongs to the same group against whom the earlier FIRs were registered with the allegation of fabrication and forgery of the agreement dtd. 20/9/2021. It is argued that with respect to the present FIR, the petitioner has never entered into any such agreement with any person muchless, the complainant-Balvir Singh and does not have any plot measuring 150 square yards in lieu of the land pooling scheme, at Sector-90, SAS Nagar. It is further submitted that the allegations in the FIR are apparently incorrect inasmuch as, it has been stated that Rs.20.00 lacs cash has been paid and it is argued that it is impossible to believe that a person entering into agreement would not pay any amount in white or through a documented transaction moreso, in present times. It is submitted that at any rate, the entire dispute is based on documentary evidence and the petitioner has been in custody since 13/12/2021 and further custody of the petitioner is not requiredinasmuch as the trial in the present case is likely to take time, moreso in view of the present COVID-19 Pandemic.