PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR on 7 July 2023

[2023] 10 S.C.R. 411 : 2023 INSC 612

PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR.

v.

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No 1793 of 2023)

JULY 07, 2023

[SURYA KANT AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 – Anticipatorybail – Rejection of – Appellants’ case that they had possession overthe subject land and they never sold the subject land to anyone norhave they ever executed any power of attorney (GPA) in favor ofany third party – However, appellants learnt that the accused personshad approached the halqa patwari to sanction mutation of theaforesaid land – It was alleged that the application for mutationwas based on a forged and fabricated sale deed dated 24.02.2022– Appellant also learnt that the said sale deed was based on yetanother, purportedly, forged and fabricated GPA dated 18.09.1996– FIR registered against respondent no.2 and other accused personsu/ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC – Respondent no.2fearing arrest filed an application for anticipatory bail before theSessions Judge but the same was dismissed – However, the HighCourt granted anticipatory bail to the accused – On appeal, held:According to respondent no.2, what transpired in 1996 was sale ofthe subject land through GPA – However, regardless of obtainingall the rights over the subject land, respondent no.2 never informedthe Revenue/local authorities that he had purportedly ‘purchased’the subject land through a GPA – The ownership of the land alwaysremained in the name of the appellants in the revenue record – Aportion of subject land was acquired by the government afterexecution of the 1996 GPA and compensation was paid to theappellants – Respondent no.2 neither objected to the payment ofsuch compensation nor asserted his title over the land, which henormally would have done had he possessed any rights over it –Respondent no.2 failed to show payment of consideration to theappellants – Sale deed was executed without mentioning PAN numberor deducting TDS – It is also unclear that when subject land wassituated in Gurugram district, why the GPA was registered in Kalkaji

411

A

B

CDEFG

H

A– There are overwhelming prima facie evidences to indicate that theversion of events provided by respondent no.2 , the buyers ofproperty and Sub-registrar should be viewed with scepticism – Athorough investigation is required by the investigating authorities –Therefore, custodial interrogation of respondent no.2 and otheraccused required – Order of the High Court granting bail set aside.B

Bail – Anticipatory Bail – Purpose – The relief of AnticipatoryBail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights – While it serves asa crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protectsinnocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challengesin maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights andCthe interests of justice and striking a balance between safeguardingindividual rights and protecting public interest – While the right toliberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must alsoconsider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and theneed for a fair and free investigation.

DAllowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed atsafeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool toprevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocentindividuals from harassment, it also presents challenges inEmaintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and theinterests of justice. The tight rope lies in striking a balancebetween safeguarding individual rights and protecting publicinterest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocenceare vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence,Fthe impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation.The court’s discretion in weighing these interests in the factsand circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial toensure a just outcome. [Para 19][421-E-G]

2. In light of Respondent No. 2’s own contention, whatGtranspired in 1996 was the sale of the Subject Land through theGPA. Upon reviewing a copy of the alleged 1996 GPA presentedto the court, the Appellants relinquished all crucial rightspertaining to the Subject Land. These rights include possessionof the land, handling water, sewer, electricity, power connections,and other services related to the property, paying lease paymentsH

and other dues, making additions or modifications to the existingstructure with required permissions, renting out the land, issuingreceipts, and managing tenant-related matters. Furthermore, theAppellants granted authority for selling, disposing, or transferringthe land, entering into agreements, and receiving considerationon behalf of the principal. However, regardless of obtaining allthe rights over the Subject Land, Respondent No. 2 does notappear to have ever informed the Revenue/local authorities thathe had purportedly ‘purchased’ the Subject Land through a GPA.The ownership of the land always remained in the name of theAppellants in the revenue record and no application for changeof mutation, etc. was moved by the 2nd Respondent. At a verybelated stage, after the execution of the alleged 1996 GPA, aportion of the Subject Land was acquired by the Government andcompensation in this regard was paid to the Appellants.Respondent No. 2 neither objected to the payment of suchcompensation nor asserted his title over the land, which henormally would have done had he possessed any rights over it. Itwould be incongrous to accept transfer of ownership rights in animmovable 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 reliedupon to execute the disputed sale deed. The Court fails tounderstand or comprehend as to how a bona fide purchaser couldpay crores of rupees as sale consideration to a person who neitherpossesses documents showing ownership and title nor hasoriginal GPA of the true owner(s) of the property being sold. Thefact that the sale deed was allegedly executed without mentioningthe PAN Number or without deducting TDS, underlines thedubious nature of this transaction. The Court is equally intriguedat the behaviour of the Registering Authorities and theiracceptance of the conveyance deed in the absence of theseformalities being completed. The Sub-Registrar and his officialswere obligated to verify the ownership rights before registrationof the sale deed. As per the Appellants’ claim, the prior originalsale deeds of the land are still in their possession. The fact thatthe vendee agreed to pay such massive sums of money toRespondent No. 2 without obtaining the original records as of AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Anow casts a shadow over the legitimacy of the transaction. [Para21][422-G-H; 423-A-B]

4. It is also unclear why, given that when the Subject Landis situated in Gurugram District, the GPA in relation to theproperty was registered in Kalkaji, New Delhi. It raises someBsuspicion regarding the genuineness of the GPA. There is, thus,overwhelming and clear cut prima facie evidence to indicate thatthe version of events provided by Respondent No. 2, the buyersof the property, and the Sub Registrar, should be viewed withscepticism. These parties, prima facie, appear to be acting inconcert with each other and might be hands in glove, with theCulterior motive of duping the absentee land-owners. This anglerequires thorough consideration by the investigating authorities.The Appellants have seemingly fallen prey to a well-orchestratedconspiracy hatched to rob them of their highly valuable property.In such cases where the victims of a crime, on account of theirDold age and geographical distance, are unable to secure justiceon their own, it falls upon Courts and the State to carry out theirsolemn duty to ward off injustice and restore the faith of one andall in the rule of law. [Para 23][423-E-G]

5. The facts of the case speak for themselves and anEelement of criminality cannot be ruled out at this stage. Whetheror not the alleged offences were committed by Respondent No.2 and his co-accused in active collusion with each other can beeffectively determined by a free, fair, unhampered anddispassionate investigation. In the peculiar facts andcircumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of not onlyFRespondent No. 2 but all other suspects is, therefore, imperativeto unearth the truth. Joining the investigation with a protectiveumbrella provided by pre-arrest bail will render the exercise ofeliciting the truth ineffective in such like case. The Court, asmentioned, also skeptical, suspicious and incredulous about theGverification process of the 1996 GPA carried out by the Sub-Registrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Hence, the conduct of the officialsof Sub-Registrar Office, Kalkaji, New Delhi is also required tobe examined to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.[Para 28][424-G-H; 425-A-C]

H

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC565 : [1980] 3 SCR 383; Sushila Aggarwal v. State(NCT of Delhi) (2018) 7 SCC 731 : [2018] 6 SCR 825– followed.

A

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra(2011) 1 SCC 694 : [2010] 15 SCR 201 – relied on.

B

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo.1793 of 2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2022 of the High Courtof Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.24093 of 2022.

D

Saket Sikri, Gautam Kazanchi, Ajaypal Singh Kullar, VikalpMudgal, Advs. for the Appellants.

Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, A.A.G., Maninder Singh, Anupam Lal Das,Sr. Advs., Dr. Monika Gusain, Raktim Gogoi, Kartikeya Singh, VaibhavTomar, S. Vinod, Shivam Pal Sharma, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. forthe Respondents.

E

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SURYA KANT, J.

1. Application seeking permission to file the SLP is allowed. LeaveGranted.

F

2. The instant appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court ofPunjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) dated31.05.2022, whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed underSection 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,‘Cr.P.C’) and granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 in FIR No.113 of 2022, dated 16.03.2022, registered at PS Badshahpur, districtGurugram, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’).

G

H

AA. FACTS

3. The abovementioned FIR was lodged by the Appellants againstRespondent No. 2 and other co-accused individuals, namely, Shel Narang,Bhim Singh and Vinod. According to the contents of the FIR, theAppellants are senior citizens who were owners and had possessionBover the land bearing rect. No. 55, Killa No. 3/1 (7-9), 4/1 (7-13),measuring 15 Kanal 2 Marla, situated within the revenue estate of Village Begampur Khatola, Tehsil Kadipur, District Gurugram (hereinafter,‘Subject Land’) for over a period of 30 years. The Appellants claim thatthey never sold the Subject Land to anyone nor have they ever executedany power of attorney (hereinafter, ‘GPA’) in favor of any third party.CThe area has, in their version of events, always been unequivocally undertheir possession and has never been ceded in any form or fashion topeople outside the family.

4. On 28.02.2022, Appellant No. 2 went to Patwar Bhawan,Gurugram to obtain revenue papers for the Subject Land. He discoveredDthere only that a person named Bhim Singh Rathi had approached thehalqa patwari to sanction mutation of the aforementioned land. Theapplication for mutation was, as per the Appellants, based on a forgedand fabricated sale deed bearing vasika No. 11493 dated 24.02.2022(hereinafter, ‘2022 Sale Deed’). After looking into the matter further,EAppellant No. 2 learned that the said sale deed was registered in theoffice of Sub-Registrar Kadipur, District Gurugram and was executedby Respondent No. 2. The execution in question was based on yet another,purportedly, forged and fabricated GPA bearing Vasika No. 13907 dated18.09.1996 (hereinafter, ‘1996 GPA’), registered in the office of Sub-Registrar-V, South East Delhi.F

5. The Appellants, as alluded to earlier, have adopted the stancethat they never executed or registered any GPA in favor of RespondentNo. 2, nor are they even acquainted with him in any form or fashion.Instead, both the 1996 GPA and the 2022 Sale Deed were completelyfraudulent documents created by Respondent No. 2 and the remainingGco-accused named in the FIR, in collusion with other officials at theSub-Registrar’s office. These actions were carried out in completesubterfuge and without any involvement of the Appellants.

6. The Appellants claim that they are in possession of the originalsale deed for the Subject Land, and a true copy of it was attached to the H

complaint. Upon examining the 2022 Sale Deed, it was apparent to themthat the accused had failed to provide a PAN Number, which ismandatorily required for a valid sale deed. Furthermore, there was nomention of the 1% amount of Tax Deducted at Source (hereinafter,‘TDS’) being deposited, which also forms part of the requirements forexecution and registration of a sale deed.

A

B

7. The complaint also mentioned the current market value of theAppellants’ land, measuring 15 Kanal 2 Marla, as being approximatelynot less than Rs. 50 crores. However, in the 2022 Sale Deed, the saleconsideration was shown as an abjectly low and meager amount of Rs.6,60,62,500/-, which was significantly below its actual asking price.Moreover, the Appellants had not received even this miniscule amounteven if the 2022 Sale Deed was hypothetically considered to be valid.Thus, this document was clearly created by Respondent No. 2 and theco-accused in collusion with the witnesses, the scribe, and officials ofthe Sub-Registrar Tehsil Kadipur, District Gurugram, with the unholyintention to wisk the property away from the the complainants and placeit under the possession of the accused.

C

D

8. Accordingly, the First Information Report was registered atPolice Station, Badshahpur, Gurugram, and an investigation was initiated.Respondent No. 2, fearing arrest if he were asked to appear before theInvestigating Officer, filed an application for Anticipatory Bail beforethe Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram.

E

9. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, dismissed RespondentNo. 2’s application for anticipatory bail in an order dated 23.05.2022,while observing that:

F

i.Respondent No. 2 was accused of allegedly forging a GPAand executing the 2022 Sale Deed. The original 1996 GPAwas still to be recovered by the police. Several questionspertaining to the whereabouts of the 1996 GPA, theexecution of the sale deed, the payment of saleconsideration, sanctioning of the mutation, and theGrelationship between Respondent No. 2 and the Appellants,were all to be ascertained;

ii.The allegations against Respondent No. 2 were serious,and filing a civil suit did not absolve them of criminal liability.Anticipatory bail was to be granted only in exceptional H

circumstances, as a person under pre-arrest bail may notdisclose all the relevant facts under questioning, due to thesafeguard provided under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.Custodial interrogation of Respondent No. 2 was necessaryfor a thorough investigation, given all the outstanding pointsof inquiry that remained pending.

A

B

10. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 2 filed an application forAnticipatory Bail before the High Court. The High Court, vide impugnedorder dated 31.05.2022, allowed the application and granted himAnticipatory Bail. The High Court, inter alia, observed that:

Ci.The dispute involves the validity of the 1996 GPA and themisappropriation of the purported sale consideration. Civilsuits have been filed regarding the ownership and possessionof the property already and a handwriting expert’s reportwas crucial in determining the authenticity of the signatures; Dii.The High Court acknowledged the pendency of ongoingcivil suits and suggested that the validity of the 1996 GPA’sexecution could be determined by the civil court, and didnot need to be a determinative factor in the proceedings foranticpatory bail; Eiii.Prima facie, it seemed that the involvement of the criminaljustice system, initiated by the Appellants, might be anattempt to settle certain transactions and resolve ongoingdisputes between them. In this background, to ensure thatjustice was done for both the Appellants and RespondentNo. 2, directions were issued for them to provide theirFspecimen signatures. The handwriting expert was taskedwith comparing the writings and signatures to assess theirsimilarity.”

11. The High Court ordered that no arrest of Respondent No. 2would be carried out as long as he provided personal and surety bondsGof Rs. 2 lakhs each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. Whileextending these protections, Respondent No. 2 was also instructed tocooperate with the investigation whenever required and to give anundertaking to avoid tampering with prosecution evidence, or influenceany of the witnesses. Furthermore, a deposit of of Rs. 1.50 Crores was H

to be subimtted before the concerned Magistrate which would serve asvictim compensation and be disbursed based on the outcome of the trial.

12. The Appellants being aggrieved at the grant of anticipatorybail, are before us.

B. CONTENTIONS

13. Shri Saket Sikri, learned counsel for the Appellants, vehementlycontended that the High Court acted on the erroneous assumption thatthe alleged 1996 GPA in favor of Respondent No. 2 is genuine. Theoriginal copy of 1996 GPA has not been recovered by the police till date,and hence, custodial interrogation is required. Furthermore, the HighCourt failed to consider that despite the 1996 GPA being executed infavour of Respondent No. 2, he applied for its certified copy only inFebruary 2022, i.e., 26 years later, whereas he should have possessedthe original already if his claim is to be bona fide. The present case isone where Respondent No. 2, in collusion with other accused persons,has carried out an elaborate fraud against the Appellants, who arevulnerable owing to their age and the NRI status. Additionally, thesignatures used by Appellant No. 2 during the period between 1990-2000 are dissimilar, unalike and non-identical from those inscribed on thealleged GPA dated 18.09.1996. In addition, the consideration of thealleged sale deed - Rs. 6.60 crores - is far less than the market value ofthe Subject Land, which is stated to be Rs. 50 crores.

14. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned Additional Advocate Generalappearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 – State of Haryana, stronglycontested the grant of anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 and supportedthe stand taken by the Appellants. It was argued that a strong primafacie case has been made out against Respondent No. 2, and that hiscustodial interrogation is vital to the objective of unearthing the largerconspiracy.

15. Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel representingRespondent No. 2, vigorously defended High Court’s view and assertedthat each and every allegation, contention, and submission made by theAppellants was factually and legally incorrect. Learned Senior Counselargued that Respondent No.2 had originally purchased the land in questionfrom the Appellants in the year 1996. However, at that time, there wasa third-party lease existing on the land. In order to address this, the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAppellants executed 1996 GPA, which was duly registered at the officeof the Sub-Registrar, Kalkaji, Delhi. This GPA has not been disputed inany court of law and has not been challenged by the Appellants up to thetime the civil suits were filed, clearly showing that the contestation of itsvalidity was merely an afterthought. Respondent No. 2 had fullauthorization through the 1996 GPA to execute a registered deed ofBconveyance for the property in question and receive consideration for it.On 24.02.2022, Respondent No. 2 sold the land through the exercise ofpower vested in him by virtue of the 1996 GPA. However, the purchasershave not been included as parties before this Court. The authenticity ofthe GPA had been verified according to the report of the Sub Registrar,CKalkaji, dated 13.02.2022 and the sale of the land only took place afterthe receipt of the verification report. It was only after this that theAppellants began threatening Respondent No. 2 and the purchasers,and subsequently filed the civil suits contesting the validity of the GPA.Furthermore, the High Court has granted anticipatory bail to RespondentNo. 2 subject to strict conditions such as providing specimen signaturesDto the Investigating Officer and depositing Rs. 1.50 crores. The policehave also obtained records from the Sub Registrar’s office andRespondent No. 2 has complied with all the conditions imposed on himby the High Court.

C. ANALYSISE

16. It goes without saying that the alleged offences of forgingdocuments for transferring ownership of land worth crores of rupeesare grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect thepersonal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon us to analyzethe seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodialFinterrogation.

17. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State ofMaharashtra[1], this Court carefully considered the principles establishedby the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab[2]case. After a thorough deliberation, this court arrived at the followingGconclusion:

“112. The following factors and parameters can be takeninto consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:

1 (2011) 1 SCC 694.2 (1980) 2 SCC 565.H

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exactrole of the accused must be properly comprehended beforearrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as towhether the accused has previously undergone imprisonmenton conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similaror other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the objectof injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him orher;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in casesof large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

18. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)[3], the ConstitutionBench reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatorybail, courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of theoffences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of thecase.

19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguardingindividual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuseof the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment,it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance betweenindividual rights and the interests of justice.The tight rope we must walklies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights andprotecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption ofinnocence 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. Thecourt’s discretion in weighing these interests in the facts andcircumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a justoutcome.

20. Adverting to some of the undisputed facts in this case, it isclear that the 1996 GPA has not yet seen the light of the day. No indication3 (2018) 7 SCC 731.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aregarding the location of the original document has been placed beforeus. In light of Respondent No. 2’s own contention, what transpired in1996 was the sale of the Subject Land through the GPA. Upon reviewinga copy of the alleged 1996 GPA presented to the court, the Appellantsrelinquished all crucial rights pertaining to the Subject Land. These rightsinclude possession of the land, handling water, sewer, electricity, powerBconnections, and other services related to the property, paying leasepayments and other dues, making additions or modifications to the existingstructure with required permissions, renting out the land, issuing receipts,and managing tenant-related matters. Furthermore, the Appellants grantedauthority for selling, disposing, or transferring the land, entering intoCagreements, 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 Landthrough a GPA. The ownership of the land always remained in the nameof the Appellants in the revenue record and no application for change ofDmutation, etc. was moved by the 2[nd] Respondent. We are informed thatat a very belated stage, after the execution of the alleged 1996 GPA, aportion of the Subject Land was acquired by the Government andcompensation in this regard was paid to the Appellants. Respondent No.2 neither objected to the payment of such compensation nor asserted hisEtitle over the land, which he normally would have done had he possessedany rights over it. It would be incongrous to accept transfer of ownershiprights in an immovable property merely on execution of a power ofattorney.

21. We must keep in mind that the Subject Land is a prime propertyFsituated in the National Capital Region. Even in the year 1996, it’s valuemust have been quite significant. The 2[nd] Respondent has so far notbeen able to show payment of any consideration to the Appellants in theyear 1996. The original GPA, as we have noted on multiple ocassions, isconspicuous by its absence. A certified copy of this GPA is said to have

been relied upon to execute the disputed sale deed. We fail to understandGor comprehend as to how a bona fide purchaser could pay crores ofrupees as sale consideration to a person who neither possesses documentsshowing ownership and title nor has original GPA of the true owner(s)of the property being sold. The fact that the sale deed was allegedlyexecuted without mentioning the PAN Number or without deductingHTDS, underlines the dubious nature of this transaction. We are equally intrigued at the behaviour of the Registering Authorities and theiracceptance of the conveyance deed in the absence of these formalitiesbeing completed. The Sub-Registrar and his officials were obligated toverify the ownership rights before registration of the sale deed. As perthe Appellants’ claim, the prior original sale deeds of the land are still intheir possession. The fact that the vendee agreed to pay such massivesums of money to Respondent No. 2 without obtaining the original recordsas of now casts a shadow over the legitimacy of the transaction.

22. It warrants mention here that the Appellants are elderly couple.Being NRIs, the majority of their time is spent abroad. They have statedthat they were not in India at the time of execution of disputed saledeed. The Appellants’ claim that the market value of the land is not lessthan Rs. 50 crores, although not got verified yet by a valuation expert,does not appear to be far off the mark. There is a serious allegation ofunder-valuation of the land at the time of execution of the allegedlyfraudulent sale deed. The contention that the consideration of Rs.6.60crores is much less than the market value of the Subject Land, thus, alsorequires a deeper probe.

23. We are not oblivious of the fact that Respondent No. 2 is saidto have applied for the certified copy of the 1996 GPA in February, 2022after a period of 26 years since its execution. It is also unclear why,given that when the Subject Land is situated in Gurugram District, theGPA in relation to the property was registered in Kalkaji, New Delhi. Itraises some suspicion regarding the genuineness of the GPA. There is,thus, overwhelming and clear cut prima facie evidence to indicate thatthe version of events provided by Respondent No. 2, the buyers of theproperty, and the Sub Registrar, should be viewed with scepticism. Theseparties, prima facie, appear to be acting in concert with each other andmight be hands in glove, with the ulterior motive of duping the absenteeland-owners. This angle requires thorough consideration by theinvestigating authorities. The Appellants have seemingly fallen prey to awell-orchestrated conspiracy hatched to rob them of their highly valuableproperty. In such cases where the victims of a crime, on account of theirold age and geographical distance, are unable to secure justice on theirown, it falls upon Courts and the State to carry out their solemn duty toward off injustice and restore the faith of one and all in the rule of law.

24. All these material facts which go to the root of the matterwere unfortunately not brought to the notice of the High Court. Had AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Athere been proper assistance, the High Court also would have given afree hand to the investigating agency to investigate the role of RespondentNo. 2, the vendees, the Sub Registrar and other officials of the RegisteringAuthority, so as to uncover the collusion, connivance and conspiracy, ifany, engineered to commit fraud at the expense of the Appellants.

B25. Land scams in India have been a persistent issue, involvingfraudulent practices and illegal activities related to land acquisition,ownership, and transactions. Scammers often create fake land titles,forge sale deeds, or manipulate land records to show false ownership oran encumbrance-free status. Organized criminal networks often planand execute these intricate scams, exploiting vulnerable individuals andCcommunities, and resorting to intimidation or threats to force them tovacate their properties. These land scams not only result in financiallosses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects,erode public trust, and hinder socio-economic progress.

26. While we do not wish to comment further on this issue, weDbelieve it is necessary to foil any trace of organised crime perpetratedby land mafia, through an unimpaired and unobstructed investigation.

27. It is inarguable that the cancellation of bail should be doneonly for substantial and compelling reasons, however, setting aside anerroneous bail order is altogether different from cancelling bail. ThisECourt does not intend to interfere with the judicial discretion exercisedby the High Court in granting bail to an accused as a standard practice.However, it is essential to ensure that all the material facts are broughton record and thereafter only the discretionary jurisdiction is exercisedin accordance with the fundamental principles of anticipatory bail laidFdown in various decisions over time by this Court.

28. It is immaterial that the genuineness of the 1996 GPA is alreadysub-judice before the Civil Court in the civil suits pending between theparties. The appellants, owing to their age and residential status, cannotbe expected to await indefinitely for the outcome of these civilGproceedings. Regardless, the pendency of these cases does not estopthe issues of forgery and fabrication being considered in the course ofcriminal investigation. The facts of the case speak for themselves andan element of criminality cannot be ruled out at this stage. Whether ornot the alleged offences were committed by Respondent No. 2 and hisco-accused in active collusion with each other can be effectivelyH

determined by a free, fair, unhampered and dispassionate investigation.In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogationof not only Respondent No. 2 but all other suspects is, therefore,imperative to unearth the truth. Joining the investigation with a protectiveumbrella provided by pre-arrest bail will render the exercise of elicitingthe truth ineffective in such like case. We are, as mentioned, also skeptical,suspicious and incredulous about the verification process of the 1996GPA carried out by the Sub-Registrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Hence, theconduct of the officials of Sub-Registrar Office, Kalkaji, New Delhi isalso required to be examined to take the investigation to its logicalconclusion.

29. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are primafacie in nature and shall not be taken as final conclusions.

D. CONCLUSION

30. In light of above discussion and without expressing any viewson the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orderdated 31[st] May, 2022 passed by the High Court granting pre-arrest bailto Respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside.

31. Given the facts and circumstances of this case, we expandthe scope of inquiry in these proceedings and direct the Commissionerof Police, Gurugram to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) tobe headed by an officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent ofPolice along with two Inspectors as its members. The SIT shall takeover the investigation forthwith. The SIT shall have the liberty to subjectRespondent No. 2, the vendee(s), the Sub Registrar/officials, or othersuspects to custodial interrogation to arrive at a definite conclusion, strictlyin accordance with law.

32. In case the vendees, the officers/officials of the RegisteringAuthority have secured anticipatory bail from Sessions Court/High Court,the SIT shall be at liberty to seek suitable modifications to such ordersso that no impediment is caused in carrying out a fair and freeinvestigation.

33. No interlocutory/interim order passed by the Civil Court shallobstruct the ongoing investigation. The Civil Court shall not, from thispoint forth, pass any such order in pending civil suits which may hamperthe ongoing investigation.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

426SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A34. The SIT shall conclude the investigation as early as possibleand not later than two months from the date of this order.

35. The Commissioner of Police, Gurugram shall be personallyresponsible for monitoring the day to day investigation.

36. The authorities of NCT of Delhi shall extend full cooperationBin the matter of verification of the genuineness of the GPA alleged tohave been registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Kalkaji, New Delhiin the year 1996.

Ankit Gyan

C(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H