IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-4009 of 2009
Date of decision: 9th March, 2009
Rajinder Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for
the State.
Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
By this common order, two petitions, viz. Criminal Misc. No. M-
4009 of 2009 preferred by Rajinder Singh and Criminal Misc. No. M-4193 of
2009 preferred by Parampreet Singh Grewal shall be decided together.
Rajinder Singh and Mohan Singh are brothers. It is alleged that
Mohan Singh has adopted Parampreet Singh Grewal, real son of Rajinder
Singh. Mohan Singh has sold his share in land, vide registered sale deed to
the complainant. It is stated that Mohan Singh, by an agreement dated 13th
February, 1987, had put Parampreet Singh Grewal, at the behest of
Rajinder Singh, in possession of the land. Purchasers of the land,
complainants, having purchased the land, have been denied possession of
the land by devising a method, whereby brother and nephew (adopted son)
have been put in possession of the land.
On the last date of hearing, Counsel for the State had
submitted that though adoption deed has been recorded, agreement has
Criminal Misc. No. M-4009 of 2009 2
not been handed over to the Investigating Officer. This Court on 12th
February, 2009, had passed the order, and had granted interim bail to the
petitioner on the ground that no document has been forged or fabricated
and all documents shall be handed over to the investigating agency to
facilitate completion of the investigation. The petitioner was supposed to
extend cooperation and assistance to the Investigating Officer. The matter
was adjourned on 27th February, 2009 and then on March 2, 2009.
Today, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that Mohan Singh has sent an affidavit that the agreement dated
13th February, 1987, signed by him, has been lost. Petitioner was
beneficiary of the agreement. The agreement was supposed to be in his
possession. In the present case, not only the necessary document, which
was forged to harm the interest of the complainant, is being withheld, but
investigating agency is being deprived of the documents by coning false
reasons.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. No ground
is made out to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, above said two petitions are dismissed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
March 9, 2009
rps