Crl. Misc. No. M-22554 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-22554 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.8.2010 Sunil Chawla ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 423, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala, vide FIR No.106 dated 30th April, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner placed reliance on a sale agreement due to bonafide belief that the same was executed by Jagjit Lal Verma (husband of complainant) and he also filed a civil suit on that basis. According to counsel, it cannot be said that the petitioner forged the document in question. Learned State counsel (on the instructions from ASI Balkar Singh, who is present in court) has, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. He has submitted that the sale agreement, on which the petitioner relied, was actually forged and petitioner knowingly sought to draw benefit from the said forged document. He submits that FSL report has been received by the investigating agency. It has been found that the said agreement was forged, as Jagjit Lal Crl. Misc. No. M-22554 of 2010 2 Verma, who is stated to have signed on the said document, had already expired. From the FSL report, it became clear that signatures borne on the sale agreement was not of Jagjit Lal Verma. According to him, the petitioner was the only beneficiary of the agreement and was seeking to execute the sale agreement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that allegations against the petitioner are serious. He is alleged to have relied upon an agreement, which did not bear the signatures of Jagjit Lal Verma, since deceased. He even filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of the said sale agreement. It is only on complaint of wife of deceased Jagjit Lal Verma that the entire forgery came to light. Investigating agency came to the conclusion that agreement to sell was actually forged and the petitioner was beneficiary thereof. Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner would be entitled to concession of the pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. Nothing said herein above shall, however, be deemed to be an expression or opinion on merits of the case. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 17.8.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No