KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity the Code) prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 106 dated 22-8-2003 under Section 420, IPC at Police Station Amargarh. The FIR is based on a complainant filed by one Balraj Singh s/o Malkit Singh, r/o village Bhoomsi, Tehsil Maler Kotla. It has been alleged against Kuldip Sigh, the petitioner, that he has been running a medical practice in the village of the complainant i.e. village Chaunda and he was on visiting terms with him. The elder son of complainant Anup Singh had passed M. A. when the posts of Panchayat Secretary were advertised in the year 2001. On the promise of getting appointment as a Panchayat Secretary by the petitioner-accused, the complainant settled the bargain for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and half of the amount i.e. 1,25,000/- was paid on 23-10- 2001. The aforementioned amount has not been returned nor Anup Singh has been appointed to the promised job. It is alleged that the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- has been taken from the complainant fraudulently. It is on these allegations and after obtaining the opinion of the Deputy District Attorney legal, a case under Section 420, IPC has been registered and ASI Bhajan Singh was appointed as the Investigating Officer.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge seeking pre- arrest bail. The application has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- is yet to be made and the provisions of pre-arrest bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. are to be sparingly involved.

(3.) Shri Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been victimised on account of the fact that in the panchayat election held in June, 2003, the petitioner opposed one Gurcharan Singh who contested for the post of Sarpanch of gram panchayat, Bhoomsi. However, the complainant Balraj Singh had supported the aforementioned Gurcharan Singh. During that period, Balraj Singh many a time threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and the FIR now registered against the petitioner is on account of political rivalry. The learned counsel has further argued that there is long delay of about two years in lodging of FIR as occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 23-10-2001. Such a long delay has been used for concocting a false story and, therefore, no offence under Section 420, IPC could be made out.