2023 (7) TMI 1366 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court cancels anticipatory bail for accused in crores worth land document forgery case

The SC set aside the HC's order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent in a case involving forging documents for land ownership transfer worth ... Contest to the grant of anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 - Forging documents for transferring ownership of land - appellant contended that the High Court acted on the erroneous assumption that the alleged 1996 GPA in favor of Respondent No. 2 is genuine - HELD THAT:- It goes without saying that the alleged offences of forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores of rupees are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon us to analyze the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation. 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 we must walk 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. The 2nd Respondent has so far not been able to show payment of any consideration to the Appellants in the year 1996. The original GPA, as we have noted on multiple occasions, is conspicuous by its absence. A certified copy of this GPA is said to have been relied upon to execute the disputed sale deed. It is difficult 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. It is immaterial that the genuineness of the 1996 GPA is already sub-judice before the Civil Court in the civil suits pending between the parties. The Appellants, owing to their age and residential status, cannot be expected to await indefinitely for the outcome of these civil proceedings. Regardless, the pendency of these cases does not estop the issues of forgery and fabrication being considered in the course of criminal 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 impugned order dated 31st May, 2022 passed by the High Court granting pre-arrest bail to Respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail2. Alleged Forgery and Fraudulent Transactions3. Necessity of Custodial Interrogation4. Validity of the 1996 GPA5. Role of Investigating AuthoritiesSummary:1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail:The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 in FIR No. 113 of 2022, registered under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B. The High Court observed that the dispute involved the validity of the 1996 GPA and the misappropriation of the purported sale consideration. It suggested that the civil court could determine the validity of the 1996 GPA and granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including providing specimen signatures and depositing Rs. 1.50 Crores.2. Alleged Forgery and Fraudulent Transactions:The Appellants, senior citizens, claimed that they never sold the Subject Land nor executed any GPA in favor of Respondent No. 2. They alleged that Respondent No. 2 and other co-Accused forged documents to transfer the land ownership fraudulently. The FIR was lodged based on these allegations, and the Appellants provided evidence, including the original sale deed and discrepancies in the 2022 Sale Deed, such as the absence of a PAN Number and TDS.3. Necessity of Custodial Interrogation:The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, dismissed Respondent No. 2's anticipatory bail application, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation to recover the original 1996 GPA and ascertain various facts related to the alleged forgery and fraudulent sale deed. The Supreme Court highlighted the seriousness of the offence and the necessity for custodial interrogation to uncover the truth and prevent the misuse of anticipatory bail.4. Validity of the 1996 GPA:The Supreme Court noted that the original 1996 GPA had not been recovered and questioned the genuineness of the GPA, given that Respondent No. 2 applied for its certified copy 26 years later. The Court found it suspicious that the GPA was registered in Kalkaji, New Delhi, while the land was situated in Gurugram. The Court emphasized that the pendency of civil suits did not preclude the investigation of forgery and fabrication in the criminal case.5. Role of Investigating Authorities:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail and directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the case thoroughly. The SIT was given the liberty to subject Respondent No. 2, the vendees, and officials of the Registering Authority to custodial interrogation. The Court also directed that no interlocutory/interim order from the civil court should obstruct the investigation and mandated cooperation from the authorities of NCT of Delhi for verifying the genuineness of the 1996 GPA.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent No. 2 was set aside. The Supreme Court directed the formation of an SIT to conduct a thorough investigation, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation and cooperation from relevant authorities to ensure a fair and free investigation.