Criminal Misc. No. M-31611 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-31611 of 2011 Date of decision : December 13, 2011 Amarjit Singh @ Sagar ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. BS Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. RS Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr. JS Gill, Advocate for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Amarjit Singh alias Sagar has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 235 dated 11.8.2011, under sections 419, 420, 465, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Faridkot, District Faridkot. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to prosecution version, the petitioner in connivance with his co-accused impersonated as Jagdish Singh NRI resident of England and executed agreement to sell and received Rs 70 lacs as earnest money from the complainant party. Criminal Misc. No. M-31611 of 2011 -2- Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned agreement is in favour of Gurdev Singh who is brother of ASI Balwant Singh and witness of the agreement is nephew of Balwant Singh ASI. It was also contended that Balwant Singh ASI had taken Zen car of petitioner from his friend Lakhbir Singh and did not return the same for which the petitioner made representations Annexures P/3 and P/4 and therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of said ASI Balwant Singh. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner prepared forged voter identity card with photograph of some body else as voter card of Jagdish Singh and number of voter identity card thereon is of the petitioner. It was also contended that the petitioner brought the impersonator who executed the agreement and thumb marked it. It was also contended that petitioner's accomplice Lakhbir Singh filed habeas corpus petition misrepresenting that present petitioner Amarjit Singh had been detained in Police Station but the Warrant Officer appointed by this Court did not find the petitioner to have been detained in the Police Station. Counsel for the complainant submitted that in fact the present petitioner (who was alleged detenue) travelled with Lakhbir Singh, one Overseer Singh and Warrant Officer in the same car from Chandigarh upto a little short of the Police Station where the petitioner and Overseer Singh alighted from the car and went away in another car which they procured by telephonic call and the said other car was the same Zen car which the petitioner alleges to be with ASI Balwant Singh. Counsel for the complainant also contended that there are photographs of CCTV Criminal Misc. No. M-31611 of 2011 -3- camera of hotel Haweli at Mullanpur District Ludhiana depicting that the petitioner along with Lakhbir Singh, Warrant Officer and Overseer Singh had taken meals at the said hotel on way to the Police Station in search of the petitioner himself as alleged detenue. There are very serious allegations against the petitioner. Amount of Rs seventy lacs is said to have been paid to him. Merely on the basis of petitioner's version that his Zen car is with ASI Balwant Singh without there being any supportive material, it cannot be said at this stage even prima facie that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of said ASI Balwant Singh. Counsel for the complainant pointed out that evidence of source of earnest money of Rs 70 lacs has also been given to Investigating Agency. Keeping in view all the circumstances including the nature of allegation and nature of offences and the amount involved and all other circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the petitioner by no stretch deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 13, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'