SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH Criminal Misc. No. 30722-M of 1998 petitioners Surjit Singh and Darshan Singh have made prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No. 128 dated 5.11.1998 under Sections 420/120-B IPC, P.S. Sector 31, Chandigarh and through Crl. Misc. No. 30784-M of 1998 petitioners Jarnail Singh and Sukhwinder Singh have made prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to them in FIR No. 145 dated 5.11.1998 under Sections 420/120-B IPC, P.S. Sector 36, Chandigarh. This order will dispose of both these bail matters. Facts of Crl. Misc. No. 30782-M of 1998 may be noticed.

(2.) ON November 5, 1998, Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh wrote a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh bearing No. 1338/DC dated 5.11.1998, where through it was alleged that Narang Singh etc. residents of Village Hallo Majra and Mohinder Singh etc. residents of Village Kajheri, which fall in the Periphery of Chandigarh have been fraudulently misled by the property dealers namely Zimidara Kalghidhar, Bajwa Property Dealer and Dashmesh Property dealers and they have purchased plots through the said Property Dealers who assured them that they would not let the Administration demolish their houses. They are Mohinder Singh son of Hazara Singh, Amrik Singh son of Santokh Singh, Jatinderbir Kaur, Krishan Lal son of Chet Ram etc. They have either constructed or are in the process of construction of their houses in village Kajheri etc.

(3.) IN this case, thus the only allegation against the petitioners, is that they got the property purchased, which was situated in the periphery of Chandigarh, where raising of construction is prohibited under the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1962. According to the prosecution, the petitioners made representation to the purchasers that if they raise construction they would not allow the Administration to demolish their construction. Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, U.T., Chandigarh registered the sale-deeds. He could refuse to register the sale-deeds saying that no construction would be raised within the Chandigarh periphery. Petitioners are mere property dealers. They are said to have obtained only commission for bringing out the sale transaction between the vendor and the vendee. In my opinion, when transactions of sale have taken place and have been registered by the Sub Registrar, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the investigation of their role vis-a-vis the vendors and the vendees in the culmination of the transactions of sale. Vendees ought to have known that within the Chandigarh periphery no transaction of sale could take place and no construction could be raised without the permission of the Chandigarh Administration.