Crl. Misc.No.M-30386 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.M-30386 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8 - 3 - 2011 Surinder Pal Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.T.S.Salana, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the complainant. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.124 dated 24.9.2010 registered at Police Station Haibowal, District Ludhiana under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. Case set out in the FIR is that Amar Singh grandfather of complainant and petitioner Surinder Pal Singh had executed a sale deed for sale of land measuring 9 Kanals 3 Marlas. It is stated that after registration of the sale deed, a forged and fabricated jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 of Village Chuharpura was prepared in which Major Singh was shown as Crl. Misc.No.M-30386 of 2010 [2] owner of 39 Kanals 3 Marlas of land in the revenue record. It is further stated that the sale deed was fabricated in which description of land was shown as 39 Kanals 3 Marlas, instead of 9 Kanals 3 Marlas. Hence, offence of fabrication of value security has been committed. A Co-ordinate Bench on 13.10.2010 while granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner had passed the following orders:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the land in dispute belongs to Amar Singh, who gave his power of attorney to his grandson-Kulbir Singh, S/o Major Singh and on the basis of said power of attorney, Kulbir Singh sold the land of his father Major Singh for valuable consideration but due to typographical mistake instead of mentioning 39 kanals and three marlas, it was mentioned as 9 kanals and three marlas. The original owner of the land in dispute has given his affidavit regarding that typographical mistake. Learned counsel further contends that the complainant has no concern whatsoever with the land in dispute, as he is not the aggrieved party in any manner. Learned counsel also contends that the mutation has already been sanctioned in favour of Major Singh by the revenue authorities on the basis of sale deed. The petitioner is ready to join investigation and cooperate with the investigation by supplying all the documents and moreover the documents are also available with the authorities concerned and no recovery whatsoever is to be effected from the present petitioner. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for Crl. Misc.No.M-30386 of 2010 [3] 13.12.2010. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the investigating Officer. He shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are as under:- (i)that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii)that the petitioner 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; (iii)that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” On 10.1.2011 and 10.2.2011, the petitioner was called upon to produce the original sale deed. Today original sale deed has been produced by the petitioner. Same is handed over to counsel for the State. Counsel for the State submits that a recovery memo duly signed by the Investigating Officer shall be given to the petitioner. I have also perused the original sale deed. It shows the description of land as 9 Kanals 3 Marlas. Counsel for the complainant has produced a photo copy of the sale deed in which in the title and in the recital land has been mentioned as 39 Kanals 3 Marlas. The admissibility of Crl. Misc.No.M-30386 of 2010 [4] photostat document relied upon by the petitioner shall be determined during the course of trial. As on today, the offence, if any, is based upon documents. The documents were allegedly produced before the Tehsildar, Ludhiana (West) and are in his custody. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. Hence, the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2010 is made absolute till the submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Challan). Thereafter, the petitioner shall be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Petition stands disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 8, 2011. JUDGE RC