Crl.Misc.No.M-17482 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-16.9.2010 Rajbir Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms.Sukhwinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioners Rajbir Singh and others, have directed the present application for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, on the basis of private complaint (under section 156(3) Cr.PC) at the instance of complainant Sardool Singh, vide FIR No.1 dated 13.1.2008 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 474 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, Distt.Gurdaspur, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the application was issued to the State. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 4. As is evident from the record that the prosecution claimed that Ganga Singh son of Sant Singh was the original owner of the property in dispute. One Kirpal Singh (since deceased), husband of petitioner No.5 and father of petitioner No.6, was stated to have forged a Will dated 25.12.1951 and presented before the revenue authorities for sanctioning of mutation. As Kirpal Singh had already died, Crl.Misc.No.M-17482 of 2010 2 therefore, he was not arrayed as an accused. 5. The only allegations against the petitioners are that they are the proposed beneficiary of the alleged Will. No other allegation or any other part is attributed to them. It is not a matter of dispute that the inheritance of Ganga Singh was subject matter of civil suit between the parties, which was decided in favour of the petitioners. The dispute appears to be purely of civil nature and the rights of the parties have already been decided by the Civil Court in this relevant connection. All the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no previous history of involvement of the petitioners in any such case. Moreover, the basic rule is bail and not jail in such like cases. 6. The learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Sohan Lal, conceded that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Petitioner No.4 was found innocent during the course of investigation by the police. 7. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the present application for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. 8. However, the petitioners are directed to make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required. They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. They will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 16.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge