KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in all these petitions is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.103 dated 07.09.2018 under Sections 420 , 167 , 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Julkan, District Patiala.

(2.) On 04.10.2018, while granting interim anticipatory bail to petitioner Kulwant Singh, following order was passed in CRM-M-42431- 2018: -

(3.) As per the allegations, the complainant-Surjit Singh and his brother Bhupinder Singh had purchased 30 bighas and 4 biswas of land from co-accused Hardev Singh, vide three sale deeds dated 20.05.1999, 25.05.1999 and 28.05.1999. It is stated that as per the jamabandi for the year 1993-94, Hardev Singh was owner in possession of the aforesaid land and while purchasing the same, the complainant had taken consent from Dev Singh and his son, who did not raise any objection. Later on, it came to the notice of the complainant that aforesaid Dev Singh (father of the petitioner) by presenting a fake decree of land measuring 1/6th share of 362 bighas and 17 biswas, in the name of Hardev Singh as well as the petitioner i.e. 30 bighas and 4 biswas each, got a mutation sanctioned on the basis of the same in the year 1992, whereas, the Civil Court, vide judgement dated 04.12.1987 had in fact, dismissed the suit filed by Hardev Singh and Dev Singh qua this land and by preparing a fake decree showing that the suit was decreed, the aforesaid land was transferred by mutation and was later on incorporated in the jamabandi. It is further stated in the FIR that after the land was purchased and possession was given to the complainant, then Dev Singh and his three sisters challenged the three sale deeds by way of filing a civil suit against the complainant and his deceased brother Bhupinder Singh. Vide judgement and decree dated 30.04.2013, the said suit was decreed by Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Patiala. The appeal filed by the complainant and his brother was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgement and decree dated 17.11.2017. Thus, all the accused persons in conspiracy with each other have cheated the complainant.