Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Land Fraud Case: Pratibha Manchanda vs. State of Haryana (2023)

Date of the Judgment: July 7, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 612

Judges: Surya Kant, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a High Court grant anticipatory bail in a case where serious allegations of land fraud and forgery of documents are made? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation in cases involving significant fraud, especially when the original documents are missing. This judgment highlights the importance of balancing individual liberty with the need for a thorough investigation, particularly in cases of organized crime. The bench comprised Justice Surya Kant and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with the opinion authored by Justice Surya Kant.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over land in Gurugram, Haryana, owned by the Appellants, Pratibha Manchanda and another, who are senior citizens and Non-Resident Indians (NRIs). They claimed that they had owned and possessed the land for over 30 years and had never sold it or given power of attorney to anyone. On February 28, 2022, the Appellants discovered that a person named Bhim Singh Rathi had applied for mutation of the land based on a forged sale deed dated February 24, 2022. This sale deed was allegedly executed by Respondent No. 2, based on a forged General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated September 18, 1996. The Appellants contended that they had never executed any GPA in favor of Respondent No. 2 and were not acquainted with him. They also highlighted that the 2022 Sale Deed lacked a PAN number and proof of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deposit, which are mandatory for a valid sale deed. The Appellants also pointed out that the sale consideration in the 2022 Sale Deed was significantly lower than the market value of the land, and they had not received any payment. They sought the cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent No. 2 by the High Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, initially dismissed Respondent No. 2’s anticipatory bail application, noting the seriousness of the forgery allegations and the need for custodial interrogation to recover the original GPA and ascertain the facts. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, however, allowed Respondent No. 2’s application for anticipatory bail, observing that the dispute involved the validity of the 1996 GPA, which could be determined by a civil court. The High Court also directed the parties to provide specimen signatures for comparison by a handwriting expert and ordered Respondent No. 2 to deposit ₹1.50 crores as victim compensation.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 406, IPC: Deals with criminal breach of trust.
• Section 420, IPC: Deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 467, IPC: Deals with forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
• Section 468, IPC: Deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating.
• Section 471, IPC: Deals with using as genuine a forged document.
• Section 120B, IPC: Deals with criminal conspiracy.

The judgment also refers to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), which pertains to the grant of anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of these provisions is guided by the principles of individual liberty and the need for a fair investigation, as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that the High Court erred in assuming the 1996 GPA was genuine, as the original GPA was never recovered.
• They highlighted that Respondent No. 2 applied for a certified copy of the GPA only in February 2022, 26 years after its alleged execution, raising doubts about its authenticity.
• The Appellants contended that the signatures used by Appellant No. 2 between 1990-2000 were different from those on the alleged GPA of 1996.
• They emphasized the huge disparity between the sale consideration in the 2022 Sale Deed (₹6.60 crores) and the market value of the land (₹50 crores).
• They stated that they are senior citizens and NRIs, making them vulnerable to fraud.

State of Haryana’s Arguments:

• The State supported the Appellants’ stand, arguing that a strong prima facie case was made out against Respondent No. 2.
• They contended that Respondent No. 2’s custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy.

Respondent No. 2’s Arguments:

• Respondent No. 2 claimed that he had purchased the land from the Appellants in 1996 through the 1996 GPA.
• He argued that the 1996 GPA was duly registered and had not been disputed until the civil suits were filed.
• He asserted that he had the authority to execute the sale deed in 2022 based on the 1996 GPA.
• He contended that the High Court had granted him anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, which he had complied with.
• He stated that the authenticity of the GPA was verified by the Sub-Registrar, Kalkaji, on 13.02.2022.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2, given the serious allegations of forgery and land fraud, and the need for custodial interrogation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, Supreme Court of India: This case discussed the factors to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and the impact of granting anticipatory bail.
• Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, Supreme Court of India: A Constitution Bench judgment that laid down the principles for granting anticipatory bail.
• Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 7 SCC 731, Supreme Court of India: This Constitution Bench judgment reaffirmed the factors to be considered when deciding on anticipatory bail applications, such as the nature and gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the applicant.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694]:* The Court relied on this case to reiterate the factors to be considered while granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need to analyze the seriousness of the offense and the necessity for custodial interrogation.
• Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565]:* The Court referred to this case to highlight the principles laid down for granting anticipatory bail, underscoring the importance of balancing individual liberty with the interests of justice.
• Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2018) 7 SCC 731]:* The Court cited this case to reaffirm that courts should consider the nature and gravity of offenses and the role attributed to the applicant when considering anticipatory bail applications.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the following:

• The absence of the original 1996 GPA and the suspicious circumstances surrounding its alleged execution and use.
• The significant undervaluation of the land in the 2022 Sale Deed and the lack of mandatory details like PAN and TDS.
• The vulnerability of the Appellants as senior citizens and NRIs and the potential for a well-orchestrated fraud.
• The need for a thorough investigation, including custodial interrogation, to unearth the truth and bring the culprits to justice.
• The potential for organized crime and land scams, which require an unimpaired investigation.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual discrepancies and suspicious circumstances surrounding the case, with a significant emphasis on the need for a thorough investigation. While legal principles regarding anticipatory bail were considered, the factual matrix of the case played a more dominant role in the Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure a fair and thorough investigation into the serious allegations of fraud and forgery. The court emphasized that the High Court had not given due consideration to the factual aspects of the case, particularly the missing original GPA and the undervaluation of the land. The Court’s reasoning highlights the importance of custodial interrogation in cases where complex and serious fraud is suspected, and the need to protect vulnerable individuals from organized crime.

The Court observed that, “The original GPA, as we have noted on multiple occasions, is conspicuous by its absence.”

The Court also noted, “We fail 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.”

Further, the Court stated, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving serious allegations of forgery and land fraud, especially when the original documents are missing and there is a need for custodial interrogation.
• Courts must consider the factual aspects of the case, including the seriousness of the allegations, the missing original documents, and the potential for organized crime.
• The vulnerability of the victims, such as senior citizens and NRIs, should be taken into account.
• Custodial interrogation is essential to unearth the truth in cases involving complex and serious fraud.
• Registering authorities have a duty to verify ownership rights before registering sale deeds.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, was directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police.
• The SIT was directed to take over the investigation and have the liberty to subject Respondent No. 2, the vendees, the Sub Registrar/officials, or other suspects to custodial interrogation.
• The SIT was given the liberty to seek modifications to anticipatory bail orders secured by vendees or officials of the Registering Authority.
• The SIT was directed to conclude the investigation within two months.
• The Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, was made personally responsible for monitoring the investigation.
• The authorities of NCT of Delhi were directed to extend full cooperation in verifying the genuineness of the GPA registered in Kalkaji, New Delhi.
• No interlocutory or interim order passed by the Civil Court shall obstruct the ongoing investigation.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases involving serious allegations of forgery and land fraud, especially where the original documents are missing and there is a need for custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail should not be granted. This judgment reinforces the principle that the courts must balance individual liberty with the need for a thorough and fair investigation. It also highlights the importance of considering the factual aspects of each case, particularly when dealing with complex financial crimes and potential organized crime. The Supreme Court has clarified that the pendency of civil suits does not prevent the criminal investigation from proceeding.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations of forgery and land fraud, the suspicious circumstances surrounding the 1996 GPA, and the need for custodial interrogation to unearth the truth. The Court directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to conduct a thorough investigation, highlighting the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals from organized crime and ensuring that justice is served.