Criminal Misc. No. M-21485 of 2009 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-21485 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 9.9.2009
Harpreet Singh and another
.. Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. S. S. Panag and Mr. R. K. Dadwal, Advocates for the
petitioners.
Mr. A. S. Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
The FIR was registered with the allegation that Kulbir Singh had sold
the property, which was beyond his share in a joint khata. He had also given power
of attorney to various persons who, as per allegations in the FIR, executed sale
deeds regarding the land owned by deceased-Kulbir Singh after his death. Against
petitioner No. 1, the allegation is that he being the son of Kulbir Singh had not
only signed the sale deeds in which his father had sold excess share of land but
also witnessed the sale deeds registered after the death of his father by the attorney
given by his father. The learned court below, while rejecting the prayer of the
petitioners for bail, had noticed the fact that petitioner No. 1 was a witness to the
sale deed executed by petitioner No. 2, which was registered after the death of his
father. This fact was wrongly noticed in the order of the court below is not
disputed by learned counsel for the State. He submitted that after the father of
petitioner No. 1 had sold his share in the joint khata, only 15 square yards of land
was left out in March, 1998. However, still thereafter two sale deeds registered on
7.1.2000, in which petitioner No. 1 was one of the witness. The vendor in the
aforesaid sale deeds was deceased-Kulbir Singh, i.e., father of petitioner No. 1.
The petitioners are not beneficiary in the aforesaid two sale deeds.
It is also a fact that other co-accused in the FIR, against whom
similar allegations have been made, have already been granted the benefit of
anticipatory bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts, however, without opining on the
Criminal Misc. No. M-21485 of 2009 [ 2]
merits of the controversy, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioners
is not required. Accordingly, it is directed that in case of arrest, the petitioners
shall be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the
Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer
as and when called upon for investigation. They shall also be bound by all the
conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
9.9.2009
mk