PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANRversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR

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


               PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR.                                A
                                 v.
                  STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
                 (Criminal Appeal No 1793 of 2023)
                           JULY 07, 2023                                B
         [SURYA KANT AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
       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
                                                                        C
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        D
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
                                                                        E
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       F
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
                                                                        G
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
                                                                        H
                                411
412            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A     – 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.
B
             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
C     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.
D           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
E     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,
F     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
G     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
H
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                        413
                    ANR.

and other dues, making additions or modifications to the existing      A
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
                                                                       B
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           C
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
                                                                       D
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             E
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      F
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      G
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
                                                                       H
414           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     verification process of the 1996 GPA carried out by the Sub-
      Registrar, 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]

H
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                             415
                    ANR.

      Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC                 A
      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.                     B
                        Case Law Reference
[2010] 15 SCR 201                relied on                 Para 17
[1980] 3 SCR 383                 followed                  Para 17
[2018] 6 SCR 825                 followed                  Para 18          C
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1793 of 2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2022 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.24093 of 2022.
                                                                            D
    Saket Sikri, Gautam Kazanchi, Ajaypal Singh Kullar, Vikalp
Mudgal, Advs. for the Appellants.
      Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, A.A.G., Maninder Singh, Anupam Lal Das,
Sr. Advs., Dr. Monika Gusain, Raktim Gogoi, Kartikeya Singh, Vaibhav
Tomar, S. Vinod, Shivam Pal Sharma, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. for           E
the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      SURYA KANT, J.
      1. Application seeking permission to file the SLP is allowed. Leave   F
Granted.
      2. The instant appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) dated
31.05.2022, whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,
                                                                            G
‘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, district
Gurugram, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’).

                                                                            H
416            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A           A. FACTS
             3. The abovementioned FIR was lodged by the Appellants against
      Respondent No. 2 and other co-accused individuals, namely, Shel Narang,
      Bhim Singh and Vinod. According to the contents of the FIR, the
      Appellants are senior citizens who were owners and had possession
B     over 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 that
      they never sold the Subject Land to anyone nor have they ever executed
      any power of attorney (hereinafter, ‘GPA’) in favor of any third party.
C     The area has, in their version of events, always been unequivocally under
      their possession and has never been ceded in any form or fashion to
      people 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 discovered
D     there only that a person named Bhim Singh Rathi had approached the
      halqa patwari to sanction mutation of the aforementioned land. The
      application for mutation was, as per the Appellants, based on a forged
      and fabricated sale deed bearing vasika No. 11493 dated 24.02.2022
      (hereinafter, ‘2022 Sale Deed’). After looking into the matter further,
E     Appellant No. 2 learned that the said sale deed was registered in the
      office of Sub-Registrar Kadipur, District Gurugram and was executed
      by Respondent No. 2. The execution in question was based on yet another,
      purportedly, forged and fabricated GPA bearing Vasika No. 13907 dated
      18.09.1996 (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 stance
      that they never executed or registered any GPA in favor of Respondent
      No. 2, nor are they even acquainted with him in any form or fashion.
      Instead, both the 1996 GPA and the 2022 Sale Deed were completely
      fraudulent documents created by Respondent No. 2 and the remaining
G     co-accused named in the FIR, in collusion with other officials at the
      Sub-Registrar’s office. These actions were carried out in complete
      subterfuge and without any involvement of the Appellants.
             6. The Appellants claim that they are in possession of the original
      sale deed for the Subject Land, and a true copy of it was attached to the
H
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                                    417
             ANR. [SURYA KANT, J.]

complaint. Upon examining the 2022 Sale Deed, it was apparent to them              A
that the accused had failed to provide a PAN Number, which is
mandatorily required for a valid sale deed. Furthermore, there was no
mention of the 1% amount of Tax Deducted at Source (hereinafter,
‘TDS’) being deposited, which also forms part of the requirements for
execution and registration of a sale deed.
                                                                                   B
       7. The complaint also mentioned the current market value of the
Appellants’ land, measuring 15 Kanal 2 Marla, as being approximately
not less than Rs. 50 crores. However, in the 2022 Sale Deed, the sale
consideration 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 amount               C
even if the 2022 Sale Deed was hypothetically considered to be valid.
Thus, this document was clearly created by Respondent No. 2 and the
co-accused in collusion with the witnesses, the scribe, and officials of
the Sub-Registrar Tehsil Kadipur, District Gurugram, with the unholy
intention to wisk the property away from the the complainants and place            D
it under the possession of the accused.
       8. Accordingly, the First Information Report was registered at
Police Station, Badshahpur, Gurugram, and an investigation was initiated.
Respondent No. 2, fearing arrest if he were asked to appear before the
Investigating Officer, filed an application for Anticipatory Bail before           E
the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram.
      9. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, dismissed Respondent
No. 2’s application for anticipatory bail in an order dated 23.05.2022,
while observing that:
      i.     Respondent No. 2 was accused of allegedly forging a GPA               F
             and executing the 2022 Sale Deed. The original 1996 GPA
             was still to be recovered by the police. Several questions
             pertaining to the whereabouts of the 1996 GPA, the
             execution of the sale deed, the payment of sale
             consideration, sanctioning of the mutation, and the                   G
             relationship 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
418                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A                    circumstances, as a person under pre-arrest bail may not
                     disclose all the relevant facts under questioning, due to the
                     safeguard provided under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
                     Custodial interrogation of Respondent No. 2 was necessary
                     for a thorough investigation, given all the outstanding points
                     of inquiry that remained pending.
B
            10. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 2 filed an application for
      Anticipatory Bail before the High Court. The High Court, vide impugned
      order dated 31.05.2022, allowed the application and granted him
      Anticipatory Bail. The High Court, inter alia, observed that:
C           i.       The dispute involves the validity of the 1996 GPA and the
                     misappropriation of the purported sale consideration. Civil
                     suits have been filed regarding the ownership and possession
                     of the property already and a handwriting expert’s report
                     was crucial in determining the authenticity of the signatures;

D           ii.      The High Court acknowledged the pendency of ongoing
                     civil suits and suggested that the validity of the 1996 GPA’s
                     execution could be determined by the civil court, and did
                     not need to be a determinative factor in the proceedings for
                     anticpatory bail;

E           iii.     Prima facie, it seemed that the involvement of the criminal
                     justice system, initiated by the Appellants, might be an
                     attempt to settle certain transactions and resolve ongoing
                     disputes between them. In this background, to ensure that
                     justice was done for both the Appellants and Respondent
                     No. 2, directions were issued for them to provide their
F                    specimen signatures. The handwriting expert was tasked
                     with comparing the writings and signatures to assess their
                     similarity.”
             11. The High Court ordered that no arrest of Respondent No. 2
      would be carried out as long as he provided personal and surety bonds
G     of Rs. 2 lakhs each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. While
      extending these protections, Respondent No. 2 was also instructed to
      cooperate with the investigation whenever required and to give an
      undertaking to avoid tampering with prosecution evidence, or influence
      any of the witnesses. Furthermore, a deposit of of Rs. 1.50 Crores was
H
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                               419
             ANR. [SURYA KANT, J.]

to be subimtted before the concerned Magistrate which would serve as          A
victim compensation and be disbursed based on the outcome of the trial.
       12. The Appellants being aggrieved at the grant of anticipatory
bail, are before us.
      B. CONTENTIONS
                                                                              B
       13. Shri Saket Sikri, learned counsel for the Appellants, vehemently
contended that the High Court acted on the erroneous assumption that
the alleged 1996 GPA in favor of Respondent No. 2 is genuine. The
original copy of 1996 GPA has not been recovered by the police till date,
and hence, custodial interrogation is required. Furthermore, the High
Court failed to consider that despite the 1996 GPA being executed in          C
favour of Respondent No. 2, he applied for its certified copy only in
February 2022, i.e., 26 years later, whereas he should have possessed
the original already if his claim is to be bona fide. The present case is
one where Respondent No. 2, in collusion with other accused persons,
has carried out an elaborate fraud against the Appellants, who are            D
vulnerable owing to their age and the NRI status. Additionally, the
signatures used by Appellant No. 2 during the period between 1990-
2000 are dissimilar, unalike and non-identical from those inscribed on the
alleged GPA dated 18.09.1996. In addition, the consideration of the
alleged sale deed - Rs. 6.60 crores - is far less than the market value of
the Subject Land, which is stated to be Rs. 50 crores.                        E

       14. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 – State of Haryana, strongly
contested the grant of anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 and supported
the stand taken by the Appellants. It was argued that a strong prima
facie case has been made out against Respondent No. 2, and that his           F
custodial interrogation is vital to the objective of unearthing the larger
conspiracy.
       15. Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel representing
Respondent No. 2, vigorously defended High Court’s view and asserted
that each and every allegation, contention, and submission made by the        G
Appellants was factually and legally incorrect. Learned Senior Counsel
argued that Respondent No.2 had originally purchased the land in question
from the Appellants in the year 1996. However, at that time, there was
a third-party lease existing on the land. In order to address this, the
                                                                              H
420                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A     Appellants executed 1996 GPA, which was duly registered at the office
      of the Sub-Registrar, Kalkaji, Delhi. This GPA has not been disputed in
      any court of law and has not been challenged by the Appellants up to the
      time the civil suits were filed, clearly showing that the contestation of its
      validity was merely an afterthought. Respondent No. 2 had full
      authorization through the 1996 GPA to execute a registered deed of
B
      conveyance for the property in question and receive consideration for it.
      On 24.02.2022, Respondent No. 2 sold the land through the exercise of
      power vested in him by virtue of the 1996 GPA. However, the purchasers
      have not been included as parties before this Court. The authenticity of
      the GPA had been verified according to the report of the Sub Registrar,
C     Kalkaji, dated 13.02.2022 and the sale of the land only took place after
      the receipt of the verification report. It was only after this that the
      Appellants 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 Respondent
      No. 2 subject to strict conditions such as providing specimen signatures
D
      to the Investigating Officer and depositing Rs. 1.50 crores. The police
      have also obtained records from the Sub Registrar’s office and
      Respondent No. 2 has complied with all the conditions imposed on him
      by the High Court.
               C. ANALYSIS
E
             16. 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
F     interrogation.
             17. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
      Maharashtra1, this Court carefully considered the principles established
      by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab2
      case. After a thorough deliberation, this court arrived at the following
G     conclusion:
               “112. The following factors and parameters can be taken
               into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
      1
          (2011) 1 SCC 694.
      2
          (1980) 2 SCC 565.
H
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                                 421
             ANR. [SURYA KANT, J.]

         (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact             A
         role of the accused must be properly comprehended before
         arrest is made;
         (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
         whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment
         on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;         B
         (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
         (iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar
         or other offences;
         (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object          C
         of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or
         her;
         (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases
         of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
                            xxx       xxx          xxx”                         D
       18. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)3, the Constitution
Bench reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatory
bail, courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the
case.                                                                           E
       19. 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      F
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          G
outcome.
       20. Adverting to some of the undisputed facts in this case, it is
clear that the 1996 GPA has not yet seen the light of the day. No indication
3
    (2018) 7 SCC 731.
                                                                                H
422             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A     regarding the location of the original document has been placed before
      us. 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
B
      connections, and other services related to the property, paying lease
      payments 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
C     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
D
      mutation, etc. was moved by the 2nd Respondent. We are informed that
      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
E     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.
             21. We must keep in mind that the Subject Land is a prime property
F     situated in the National Capital Region. Even in the year 1996, it’s value
      must have been quite significant. 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 ocassions, is
      conspicuous 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 understand
G     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
H     TDS, underlines the dubious nature of this transaction. We are equally
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                                 423
             ANR. [SURYA KANT, J.]

intrigued at the behaviour of the Registering Authorities and their             A
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
                                                                                B
sums of money to Respondent No. 2 without obtaining the original records
as 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 stated
that they were not in India at the time of execution of disputed sale
deed. The Appellants’ claim that the market value of the land is not less       C
than 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 of
under-valuation of the land at the time of execution of the allegedly
fraudulent sale deed. The contention that the consideration of Rs.6.60
crores is much less than the market value of the Subject Land, thus, also       D
requires a deeper probe.
       23. We are not oblivious of the fact that Respondent No. 2 is said
to have applied for the certified copy of the 1996 GPA in February, 2022
after a period of 26 years since its execution. It is also unclear why,
given that when the Subject Land is situated in Gurugram District, the          E
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        F
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       G
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.
      24. All these material facts which go to the root of the matter
were unfortunately not brought to the notice of the High Court. Had             H
424             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A     there been proper assistance, the High Court also would have given a
      free hand to the investigating agency to investigate the role of Respondent
      No. 2, the vendees, the Sub Registrar and other officials of the Registering
      Authority, so as to uncover the collusion, connivance and conspiracy, if
      any, engineered to commit fraud at the expense of the Appellants.
B            25. Land scams in India have been a persistent issue, involving
      fraudulent 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 or
      an encumbrance-free status. Organized criminal networks often plan
      and execute these intricate scams, exploiting vulnerable individuals and
C     communities, and resorting to intimidation or threats to force them to
      vacate their properties. These land scams not only result in financial
      losses 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, we
D     believe it is necessary to foil any trace of organised crime perpetrated
      by land mafia, through an unimpaired and unobstructed investigation.
             27. It is inarguable that the cancellation of bail should be done
      only for substantial and compelling reasons, however, setting aside an
      erroneous bail order is altogether different from cancelling bail. This
E     Court does not intend to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised
      by 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 brought
      on record and thereafter only the discretionary jurisdiction is exercised
      in accordance with the fundamental principles of anticipatory bail laid
F     down in various decisions over time by this Court.
             28. 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
G     proceedings. Regardless, the pendency of these cases does not estop
      the issues of forgery and fabrication being considered in the course of
      criminal investigation. 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
H
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                                    425
             ANR. [SURYA KANT, J.]

determined by a free, fair, unhampered and dispassionate investigation.            A
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. We are, as mentioned, also skeptical,
                                                                                   B
suspicious and incredulous about the verification process of the 1996
GPA carried out by the Sub-Registrar, 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.
       29. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are prima        C
facie in nature and shall not be taken as final conclusions.
       D. CONCLUSION
       30. In light of above discussion and without expressing any views
on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order            D
dated 31st May, 2022 passed by the High Court granting pre-arrest bail
to Respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside.
       31. Given the facts and circumstances of this case, we expand
the scope of inquiry in these proceedings and direct the Commissioner
of Police, Gurugram to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to            E
be headed by an officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of
Police along with two Inspectors as its members. The SIT shall take
over the investigation forthwith. The SIT shall have the liberty to subject
Respondent No. 2, the vendee(s), the Sub Registrar/officials, or other
suspects to custodial interrogation to arrive at a definite conclusion, strictly
in accordance with law.                                                            F
       32. In case the vendees, the officers/officials of the Registering
Authority have secured anticipatory bail from Sessions Court/High Court,
the SIT shall be at liberty to seek suitable modifications to such orders
so that no impediment is caused in carrying out a fair and free
investigation.                                                                     G
       33. No interlocutory/interim order passed by the Civil Court shall
obstruct the ongoing investigation. The Civil Court shall not, from this
point forth, pass any such order in pending civil suits which may hamper
the ongoing investigation.
                                                                                   H
426              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A           34. The SIT shall conclude the investigation as early as possible
      and not later than two months from the date of this order.
            35. The Commissioner of Police, Gurugram shall be personally
      responsible for monitoring the day to day investigation.
             36. The authorities of NCT of Delhi shall extend full cooperation
B     in the matter of verification of the genuineness of the GPA alleged to
      have been registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi
      in the year 1996.

      Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeal allowed.
C     (Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)




D




E




F




G




H