Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 – Anticipatory bail – Rejection of – Appellants’ case that they had possession over the subject land and they never sold the subject land to anyone nor have they ever executed any power of attorney (GPA) in favor of any third party – However, appellants learnt that the accused persons had approached the halqa patwari to sanction mutation of the aforesaid land – It was alleged that the application for mutation was based on a forged and fabricated sale deed dated 24.02.2022 – Appellant also learnt that the said sale deed was based on yet another, purportedly, forged and fabricated GPA dated 18.09.1996 – FIR registered against respondent no.2 and other accused persons u/ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC – Respondent no.2 fearing arrest filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge but the same was dismissed – However, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused – On appeal, held: According to respondent no.2, what transpired in 1996 was sale of the subject land through GPA – However, regardless of obtaining all the rights over the subject land, respondent no.2 never informed the Revenue/local authorities that he had purportedly ‘purchased’ the subject land through a GPA – The ownership of the land always remained in the name of the appellants in the revenue record – A portion of subject land was acquired by the government after execution of the 1996 GPA and compensation was paid to the appellants – Respondent no.2 neither objected to the payment of such compensation nor asserted his title over the land, which he normally would have done had he possessed any rights over it – Respondent no.2 failed to show payment of consideration to the appellants – Sale deed was executed without mentioning PAN number or deducting TDS – It is also unclear that when subject land was situated in Gurugram district, why the GPA was registered in Kalkaji – There are overwhelming prima facie evidences to indicate that the version of events provided by respondent no.2 , the buyers of property and Sub-registrar should be viewed with scepticism – A thorough investigation is required by the investigating authorities – Therefore, custodial interrogation of respondent no.2 and other accused required – Order of the High Court granting bail set aside. Bail – Anticipatory Bail – Purpose – The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights – While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice and striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest – While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court’s discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome. [Para 19][421-E-G]
2. In light of Respondent No. 2’s own contention, what transpired in 1996 was the sale of the Subject Land through the GPA. Upon reviewing a copy of the alleged 1996 GPA presented to the court, the Appellants relinquished all crucial rights pertaining to the Subject Land. These rights include possession of the land, handling water, sewer, electricity, power connections, and other services related to the property, paying lease payments ANR.
and other dues, making additions or modifications to the existing structure with required permissions, renting out the land, issuing receipts, and managing tenant-related matters. Furthermore, the Appellants granted authority for selling, disposing, or transferring the land, entering into agreements, and receiving consideration on behalf of the principal. However, regardless of obtaining all the rights over the Subject Land, Respondent No. 2 does not appear to have ever informed the Revenue/local authorities that he had purportedly ‘purchased’ the Subject Land through a GPA. The ownership of the land always remained in the name of the Appellants in the revenue record and no application for change of mutation, etc. was moved by the 2nd Respondent. At a very belated stage, after the execution of the alleged 1996 GPA, a portion of the Subject Land was acquired by the Government and compensation in this regard was paid to the Appellants. Respondent No. 2 neither objected to the payment of such compensation nor asserted his title over the land, which he normally would have done had he possessed any rights over it. It would be incongrous to accept transfer of ownership rights in an immovable property merely on execution of a power of attorney. [Para 20][422-A-F]
3. A certified copy of this GPA is said to have been relied upon to execute the disputed sale deed. The Court fails to understand or comprehend as to how a bona fide purchaser could pay crores of rupees as sale consideration to a person who neither possesses documents showing ownership and title nor has original GPA of the true owner(s) of the property being sold. The fact that the sale deed was allegedly executed without mentioning the PAN Number or without deducting TDS, underlines the dubious nature of this transaction. The Court is equally intrigued at the behaviour of the Registering Authorities and their acceptance of the conveyance deed in the absence of these formalities being completed. The Sub-Registrar and his officials were obligated to verify the ownership rights before registration of the sale deed. As per the Appellants’ claim, the prior original sale deeds of the land are still in their possession. The fact that the vendee agreed to pay such massive sums of money to Respondent No. 2 without obtaining the original records as of now casts a shadow over the legitimacy of the transaction. [Para 21][422-G-H; 423-A-B]
4. It is also unclear why, given that when the Subject Land is situated in Gurugram District, the GPA in relation to the property was registered in Kalkaji, New Delhi. It raises some suspicion regarding the genuineness of the GPA. There is, thus, overwhelming and clear cut prima facie evidence to indicate that the version of events provided by Respondent No. 2, the buyers of the property, and the Sub Registrar, should be viewed with scepticism. These parties, prima facie, appear to be acting in concert with each other and might be hands in glove, with the ulterior motive of duping the absentee land-owners. This angle requires thorough consideration by the investigating authorities. The Appellants have seemingly fallen prey to a well-orchestrated conspiracy hatched to rob them of their highly valuable property. In such cases where the victims of a crime, on account of their old age and geographical distance, are unable to secure justice on their own, it falls upon Courts and the State to carry out their solemn duty to ward off injustice and restore the faith of one and all in the rule of law. [Para 23][423-E-G]
5. The facts of the case speak for themselves and an element of criminality cannot be ruled out at this stage. Whether or not the alleged offences were committed by Respondent No.
2 and his co-accused in active collusion with each other can be effectively determined by a free, fair, unhampered and dispassionate investigation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of not only Respondent No. 2 but all other suspects is, therefore, imperative to unearth the truth. Joining the investigation with a protective umbrella provided by pre-arrest bail will render the exercise of eliciting the truth ineffective in such like case. The Court, as mentioned, also skeptical, suspicious and incredulous about the verification process of the 1996 GPA carried out by the SubRegistrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Hence, the conduct of the officials of Sub-Registrar Office, Kalkaji, New Delhi is also required to be examined to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. [Para 28][424-G-H; 425-A-C]
ANR.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
565 : [1980] 3 SCR 383; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 7 SCC 731 : [2018] 6 SCR 825 – followed.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 : [2010] 15 SCR 201 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.