Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Saron, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 21.3.1999 for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 379, 148, 149 of IPC.

The FIR in the case was lodged on the complaint of Darshan Singh, who alleged that he had purchased land measuring 7 kanals 12 marlas from Ajit Singh son of Lal Singh. He had sown the Wheat crop in it. On 23.3.1999 at about 9.00 A.M. he had gone to his fields, then Shiv Singh, Chanchal Singh, Avtar Singh and Mohinder Singh sons of Lal Singh, Sukhwant Singh and Makhan Singh sons of Chanchal Singh, Satnam Singh son of Shiv Singh and Bunty (@ Hardeep Singh petitioner) son of Avtar Singh, were harvesting the wheat crop with their datars. The complainant Darshan Singh stopped them but they raised lalkara and said that the complainant be taught a lesson for purchasing the land from their brother. The complainant being helpless did not do anything and he lodged the FIR.

The co-accused of the petitioner namely Sulakhan Singh, Makhan Singh sons of Chanchal Singh, Avtar Singh and Chanchal Singh son of Lal Singh and Satnam Singh son of Shiv Singh, were tried by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala and were acquitted vide order dated 19.8.2009 (Annexure P-2). The proceedings against Shiv Singh and Mohinder Singh sons of Lal Singh abated due to their deaths. It was observed by the learned trial Magistrate that Darshan Singh complainant had claimed that he had purchased the land from Ajit Singh son of Lal Singh. The petitioner is the son of Avtar Singh, who is the brother of Ajit Singh-vendee of the land in question. The case of Ajit Singh was that the deceased Lal Singh had executed a Will dated 12.7.1980 in his favour. Darshan Singh complainant purchased the land vide sale deed dated 14.10.1998 from Ajit Singh. However, Mutation No. 514 was set aside by the Assistant Collector, Batala vide order dated 26.11.1999 holding that the Will of Lal Singh in favour of Ajit Singh (vendee of the land in question) was suspicious in nature. An appeal was filed against the said order by Ajit Singh son of Lal Singh and also by the complainant Darshan Singh. In appeal also the Will was held to be suspicious. Mutation of inheritance of Lal Singh was accordingly sanctioned on the basis of natural succession. It was held by the learned trial Magistrate in his order dated 19.8.2009 (Annexure P-2) that the Will, alleged to be executed in favour of Ajit Singh by Lal Singh had been set aside and complainant Darshan Singh was left with no title in the land in dispute, which he had purchased from Ajit Singh. Accordingly, the prosecution had failed to establish its case.

The petitioner, it is submitted, had gone abroad and he was declared a proclaimed offender on 22.10.2007. He came back and filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-6313 of 2010 for the grant of pre arrest bail. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 14.7.2010 with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within three days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. His application for regular bail was ordered to be considered within two days thereafter. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala vide order dated 11.8.2010 (Annexure P-4) has declined his bail application on the ground that the petitioner had remained absent for four years without sufficient explanation. It may be noted that the trial in the case is likely to take time. The co-accused of the petitioner have been acquitted vide order dated 19.8.2009 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala. The land, which Darshan Singh-complainant had alleged to have purchased from the father''s brother of the petitioner namely Ajit Singh son of Lal Singh was on the basis of Will executed by Lal Singh in favour of Ajit Singh. The said Will has not been accepted in the mutation proceedings. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assured that the petitioner would not abscond during the trial of the case.

In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate, shall be admitted to bail. The petitioner shall not leave the country except with the prior permission of the learned trial Court.