RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case having FIR No.3 dtd. 8/1/2024 under Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that FIR in this case was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by Deepak Kathuria wherein he has alleged that property dealer Tarun Taneja, Harvinder Singh Sachdeva, Parminder Singh Sachdeva had shown SCO-105 Phase-1, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana having area of 331.58 square yards to the complainant and his uncle Anil Jit Singh with proposal that the same is for sale and they also saw papers with regard to said property which were there with the aforesaid accused persons. The accused persons also projected that the said property was owned by Mandeep Singh and then they met said Mandeep Singh who also produced papers with regard to said property which were in his name on the basis of registered sale deed dtd. 25/5/2017. Mandeep Singh also showed them copies of allotment letter, clearance certificate etc. Even Tarun Taneja, Harvinder Singh, Parminder Singh, Upjit Singh and Naresh Kumar Sharma stated that they have already checked all the documents relating to aforesaid property and ensured that all the documents are in order. That complainant believed them and he and his uncle Anil Jit Singh entered into an agreement with regard to purchase of the aforesaid property with Mandeep Singh for a sum of Rs.5,50,00,000.00and paid Rs.1,25,00,000.00 as earnest money to Mandeep Singh in presence of all the property dealers. Even after execution of the said agreement, Tarun Taneja, Parminder Singh, Upjit Singh and Naresh Kumar Sharma took the proposed vendees to office of Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA), where on their request, the documents were checked by computer operator Amit Kumar Tewari and one another computer operator and they also assured that the property is recorded to be owned by Mandeep Singh son of Gurcharan Singh resident of Patiala. On believing their version, finally registered sale deed dtd. 28/6/2022 was executed in favour of complainant and Anil Jit Singh by Mandeep Singh and it was attested by Tarun Taneja, Naresh Kumar, Upjit Singh and Harvinder Singh and total sale consideration of Rs.5,50,00,000.00 was received from vendees by aforesaid persons and Mandeep Singh. Later on, complainant came to know that the said property was not owned by Mandeep Singh and that the documents shown to him by the accused persons were fake and they committed cheating and fraud with complainant and his uncle.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused and the same has got no relevance and is even otherwise inadmissible in evidence. That no document is available on the record to corroborate the aforesaid disclosure statement made by co-accused and thus, the same cannot be taken into consideration. It is further submitted that petitioner was a contractual employee and is already removed from service by Chief Administrator of GLADA. It is further submitted that complainant filed civil suit with regard to the subject matter involved in the present case, wherein the petitioner was not made party and in the said suit, complainant specifically pleaded that he got verified the ownership of the property by approaching the Estate Officer of GLADA. It is further submitted that the allegations leveled against the present petitioner are totally false, and the petitioner was not in a position and having no authority to prepare the disputed documents, which requires to be verified by the senior officials of GLADA. It is further submitted that petitioner is already granted interim bail by this Court and has joined investigation with the police, once and is ready and willing to join further investigation as and when called to do so by the investigating officer.