TARSEM LAL SINGLA Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Tarsem Lal Singla, son of Bant Ram, resident of House No. 3025, Sector 35 -D, Chandigarh, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 420, 467, 468 and 471, in a case arising out of FIR No. 166, dated 12.8.2013, registered at Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh.

(2.) LEARNED senior counsel submits that the petitioner is neither signatory to the alleged agreement nor was any sale deed executed by him; the cheques allegedly issued by the petitioner were subsequent to the agreement and, as such, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner was privy to the offences committed by his son Sumit; that the complainants are property - dealers and had a business dealing with the petitioner and that with connivance of the police, the complainant side has falsely roped the petitioner in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner is behind the bars from 18.11.2013 and after investigation, the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has already been submitted before the learned Court below and, as such, his further incarceration is not of any worth.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State has produced a list of cases, which is taken on record, wherein the petitioner and his son (against whom the process of declaring him as a proclaimed offender is going on) are involved. He further contends that the petitioner and his son are habitual offenders. They are not only required by the police of different police stations of different States, but even the Central Bureau of Investigation has also booked them in a case of similar nature. it has also been contended that the Court has not only to see the offences which have been committed, but the magnitude of the offences has also to be considered while granting bail to an accused. It has also been contended that the ab -initio intention of the petitioner to commit the offences in connivance with his son is very much apparent from the sequence of events available on record. He further contends that with regard to the same property, the petitioner and his son had entered into multiple agreements to sell.