CNR No.

HRFB01-017609-2022 BA 11572 of 2022

Davinder Singh vs. State of Haryana

HRFB010176092022

In the court of Rajesh Sharma (UID No.HR 0172), Addl. Sessions

Judge, Faridabad.

HARIT CIS BA : 11572 of 2022

VERMA
CNR No. : HRFB01-017609-2022
Presented on : 28.12.2022
Digitally Date of Decision: : 02.01.2023
signed by
HARIT
VERMA
Date:
2023.01.03
14:16:53
+0530
Davinder Singh, aged about 56 years son of Sawroop Singh resident of
village Lakkarpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad.

…....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana …..Respondent

FIR No. : 433 dated 03.07.2021

U.Ss. : 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B
IPC
Police Station : Surajkund, Faridabad

3rd bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Present: Sh. Gyanender Singh, counsel for the petitioner.

Sh. Partap Singh, PP for State, assisted by Sh. Kuldeep Yadav,
counsel for the complainant.

Order:
This order of mine shall dispose of an application for grant of

anticipatory bail, moved by the petitioner/accused – Davinder Singh on the

Rajesh Sharma,
ASJ, Faridabad. 02.01.2023
CNR No.HRFB01-017609-2022 BA 11572 of 2022

Davinder Singh vs. State of Haryana

averments that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in

the present case. It is submitted that first anticipatory bail application of the

petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2022 and

second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble High

Court vide order dated 23.12.2022 giving liberty to approach the Court

below with appropriate fresh application for consideration. It is further

submitted that there is no allegation of any kind of inducement, deceit or

fraudulent act committed by the petitioner directly with the complainant.

Further more, co-accused Rattan Pal and Dharmender and co-accused

Karamwati have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by

this Court vide orders dated 07.10.2022 and 28.10.2022, respectively and

co-accused Balraj has already been granted the concession of anticipatory

bail by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 16.12.2022. It is further

submitted that there is delay of almost sixteen years on the part of

complainant in lodging the FIR and there is no explanation of such long

delay. It is also averred that the ACP had submitted status report before the

Hon’ble High Court, wherein he mentioned that the petitioner had already

joined the investigation. Moreover, a civil suit between the brother of

complainant namely, Jaideep Sangwan and petitioner is pending before the

Court of Sh. Gagandeep Goyal, ld. Civil Judge, Faridabad. Besides this, it is

submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of petitioner

and he is ready to join the investigation. Hence, this bail application.

2. Reply to the bail application was filed by the State whereby

Rajesh Sharma,
ASJ, Faridabad. 02.01.2023
CNR No.HRFB01-017609-2022 BA 11572 of 2022

Davinder Singh vs. State of Haryana

prayer for grant of bail has been opposed.

3. Brief facts of this case, which are relevant for the disposal of

bail application are that the present case was registered on the complaint of

Sandeep Sangwan, who had alleged that in the year 2005, the accused –

Devender Bhadana offered him to purchase an agricultural land at Anangpur

and Lakkarpur and under trust and allurement of the accused - Devender

Bhadana, he and his brother purchased the land from him. Later on, he came

to know that the accused - Devender Bhadana was a fraudster and he was

cheating various people while selling single piece of land to them and used

to illegally pocket the sale consideration. The complainant after going

through the revenue record, was shocked to know that they have been

defrauded by the accused and all the sale deeds were forged, whereas no

such land ever existed. He further alleged that in the year 2005, the accused

- Devender Bhadana approached him for the purchase of a land and the

complainant having trust upon Devender Bhadana, purchased the land for

Rs. 7,76,000/- vide sale deed No. 4197 dated 20.06.2005. However, it was

found that the said land was not owned by the accused – Rattan Pal, for

which a complaint was given to the SHO Police Station, Surajkund

Faridabad. Thereafter, in the year 2006, the accused - Devender Bhadana

approached the complainant and stated that he wanted to sell some portion

of his agricultural land, situated at Lakkarpur, upon which the complainant

purchased 2 kanal 6 marla land vide sale deed dated 26.05.2006 for an

amount of Rs. 50 lakh. However, the accused - Devender Bhadana sold the

Rajesh Sharma,
ASJ, Faridabad. 02.01.2023
CNR No.HRFB01-017609-2022 BA 11572 of 2022

Davinder Singh vs. State of Haryana

same land to M/s Action Construction Equipment Ltd. vide sale deed No.

9866 dated 17.08.2007. Not only this, in the year 2006 the accused –

Devender Bhadana in collusion with the accused – Rattan Pal and

Accountant – Dharmender, sold 4 kanal 14 marla gair mumkin pahar land to

M/s Matromax Buildtech and further the accused - Devender Bhadana in

collusion with the accused – Balraj, sold 2 kanal 11 marla land vide sale

deed dated 15.12.2006 to the complainant. After enquiry, it came to light

that the accused - Devender Bhadana, Rattan Pal and Balraj in collusion

with the Patwari etc. got the above said land exchanged with each other and

cheated the complainant. Thereafter, the accused - Devender Bhadana on

16.08.2012 entered into a collaboration agreement through his company

namely M/s Neelkanth Furfix Pvt. Ltd. with the complainant firm namely

Alliance Infra for the land measuring 5000 Sq. Yds. bearing khasra No.

189/190, situated in village Lakkarpur and an amount of Rs. 40 lakh was

given to the accused - Devender Bhadana. In the year 2017 when the

complainant and his partner became aware of the deeds of accused persons,

one Panchayat was conveyed and the accused admitted their misdeeds and

requested to settle the matter and the accused - Devender Bhadana assured

that he was having one ancestral land in the village Anangpur, from which

he will give them 3.5 acre of the agricultural land. However, upon checking

from the revenue record, it was found that the accused - Devender Bhadana

does not have any such land in his name. The complainant further alleged

that the accused - Devender Bhadana in collusion with other farmers of the

Rajesh Sharma,
ASJ, Faridabad. 02.01.2023
CNR No.HRFB01-017609-2022 BA 11572 of 2022

Davinder Singh vs. State of Haryana

said land, cancelled the GPA which he had executed and again defrauded

him to the tune of crore of rupees. The complainant had approached the

local police for taking action, but of no use, however, on the directions of the

then ld. CJM, issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the present FIR was

registered and law was set in to motion.

4. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel

for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

5. It has been argued by ld. Counsel for the petitioner that accused

– Davinder Singh after dismissal of his anticipatory bail by this court, had

approached the Hon’ble High Court seeking concession of anticipatory bail,

but the said bail application was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to

move appropriate application before the Court below. He pointed out that it

is evident from the reply filed by ACP before the Hon’ble High Court that

the accused – Davinder Singh had already joined the investigation and only

few documents are to be recovered, which he is/was ready to hand over the

same to the I.O. He also pointed out that no custodial interrogation of the

accused is required and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation.

Lastly, he contended that concession of anticipatory bail has already been

granted to other similarly situated accused, who are named by the

complainant in the present FIR. With these submissions, ld. Counsel for the

petitioner prayed for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the accused.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State,

assisted by ld. counsel for the complainant, has contended that earlier bail

Rajesh Sharma,
ASJ, Faridabad. 02.01.2023
CNR No.HRFB01-017609-2022 BA 11572 of 2022

Davinder Singh vs. State of Haryana

application of the accused was decided on merits by this Court and as on

date, even no fresh ground is made out, which entitled the accused to move

the present application. He also contended that the accused – Davinder

Singh is habitual offender and as many as 10 FIRs are registered against

him. Accordingly, rejection of instant bail application has been prayed for.

6. Admittedly, this is the third bail application of the petitioner.

His first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

20.08.2022. Relevant para No.6 of the said order is reproduced here as

under:

“6. It is settled law that at the time of considering the application for
anticipatory bail, only prima face case and seriousness of offence is to be
seen and the defence of applicant/accused is not to be given importance.
Even there is no need to critically evaluate or analyse the evidence on
judicial record at this stage and the same is to be seen after full fledged
trial. In the instant case, it has been projected by prosecution that accused
– Davinder Singh along with two others, being directors of M/s Neelkanth
Furfix Private Limited, knowing very well that no such land ever existed
in their names, executed collaboration agreement with the complainant
company. Still further, the accused Davinder Singh, executed GPA in
respect of another land in favour of complainant, but he fraudulent sold
said land to some one else vide full and final agreement. Besides this,
other fraudulent acts of the accused have also been detailed by
prosecution in its reply. Thus, the accused in a planned manner,
committed the offence in question. On coming to know aforesaid
fraudulent acts, the complainant lodged present FIR. Now, accused –
Davinder Singh has pleaded innocence and is trying to set up a defence
that he has nothing to do with the offence in question. Apparently, in order
to conduct thorough investigation of this case so as to recover material
documents and to delve deep in to the matter, the custodial interrogation
of the petitioner may be required. Therefore, this court is of the view that
since investigation of matter is in progress, as such, if petitioner is granted

Rajesh Sharma,
ASJ, Faridabad. 02.01.2023
CNR No.HRFB01-017609-2022 BA 11572 of 2022

Davinder Singh vs. State of Haryana

pre-arrest bail, same would hamper the same. It may be added here bail
application of the co-accused Balraj has already been dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 10.08.2022.
Moreover, reply so filed by prosecution whereby present bail has
been opposed, reveals that following cases are already registered against
the accused – Davinder Singh :
(1) FIR no.1022/2017, under Section 188 IPC and 4, 5 PLP Act, Police
Station Surajkund, Faridabad;
(2) FIR no. 19/2018 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC
and 4, 5 of PLP Act, Police Station, Surajkund, Faridabad;
(3) FIR no.120/2018, under Sections 186, 188, 379, 447, 120-B and 4 and
5 of PLP Act, Police Station, Surajkund, Faridabad;
(4) FIR no.283/2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC,
Police Station, Surajkund, Faridabad;
(5) FIR no.12/2020, under Section 188 IP and 4 and 5 of PLP Act, Police
Station, Surajkund, Faridabad;
(6) FIR no.166/2021, under sections 4 and 5 of PLP Act and 15 Env. Act,
Police Station, Surajkund, Faridabad;
(7) FIR no.193/2021, under Sections 448/506 IPC, Police Station,
Surajkund, Faridabad;
(8) FIR no.530/2021, under Sections 420, 447, 120-B IPC, Police Station,
Surajkund, Faridabad;
(9) FIR no.19/2018, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Surajkund,
Faridabad; and
(10) FIR no.329/2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC,
Police Sation, Surajkund, Faridabad.
Thus, it is clear that petitioner/accused – Davinder Singh is
involved in various other cases, as such, he is a habitual offender. In these
circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory
bail to the accused – Davinder Singh.”
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court

vide CRM-M-38447-2022 (O&M), seeking relief of anticipatory bail and the

said application was got dismissed as withdrawn by the the petitioner on

dated 24.11.2022, though with appropriate fresh application for

Rajesh Sharma,
ASJ, Faridabad. 02.01.2023
CNR No.HRFB01-017609-2022 BA 11572 of 2022

Davinder Singh vs. State of Haryana

consideration.

7. Now, the petitioner has moved the present application seeking

the same relief. In this regard, it may be observed here that our own Hon’ble

High Court in Jamshed vs. State of Haryana and another, bearing CRM-

M-24024 of 2021, decided on 12.07.2021, while dismissing a petition under

section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail has held that second anticipatory bail

application is not maintainable. Relevant paras of the said order are

reproduced here as under:

“It may be mentioned here that the petitioner had approached the Court of
Sessions twice for grant of anticipatory bail but was unsuccessful both the
times. When the second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed, it
was taken up for hearing by Shri K.P.Singh, Vacation Judge/Addl.
Sessions Judge, Faridabad. He in para No.7 of the order passed in CIS No.
2370-2021 has observed that ‘undoubtedly’, second anticipatory bail
application is maintainable in case circumstances have changed.’ This
observation is erroneous. The Hon’ble Apex Court in recent judgment
G.R.Ananda Babu versus The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. arising out
of SLP (Crl.) No.213 of 2021 has observed as under:
As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail
applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the
case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused
(respondent No.2) is absconding and not cooperating with the
investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances
cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications,
once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same
Judge.
A copy of this order be sent to Shri K.P.Singh, Additional Sessions Judge,
Faridabad through District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad to apprise him of
the above mentioned Hon’ble Apex Court judgment deprecating the
tendency to file successive petitions for pre-arrest bail taking plea of
change in circumstances. This judgment be also brought to the notice of

Rajesh Sharma,
ASJ, Faridabad. 02.01.2023
CNR No.HRFB01-017609-2022 BA 11572 of 2022

Davinder Singh vs. State of Haryana

other Additional Sessions Judges, working in the Sessions Division.”

Thus, in the light of case law detailed above, the present third

bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable especially

when the earlier petition was decided on merits while passing a speaking

order. Therefore, in the given set of facts, this court is not inclined to grant

the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner – Davinder Singh.

8. Resultantly, the present application for grant of anticipatory bail

filed by the petitioner/accused – Davinder Singh is hereby dismissed. File be

consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced. (Rajesh Sharma),

Addl. Sessions Judge,
Faridabad. 02.01.2023
(UID No.HR0172)

Note: This order consists of nine pages and all the pages
have been signed by me.

(Rajesh Sharma),
Addl. Sessions Judge,
Faridabad. 02.01.2023
harit verma (UID No.HR 0172)

Rajesh Sharma,
ASJ, Faridabad. 02.01.2023