IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 9202 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 04.05.2010. Kiran Pal ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.N.Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl..A.G., Haryana. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present application has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.343 dated 14.07.2009, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at P.S. City Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Briefly stated, one Smt. Sharbati Devi was owner of half share of plot measuring 302 sq. yards and Smt. Bharto Devi alongwith her sons and daughters was owner of another half share and that Smt. Bharto Devi or the complainant had never executed any power of attorney regarding the said CRM No.M-9202 of 2010 plot in favour of petitioner. Smt. Bharto Devi died on 17.09.2008 and Smt. Sharbati Devi died on 14.06.1983. After death of Smt.Bharto Devi, the complainant – Mukesh Kumar went to the office of Patwari for getting the mutation sanctioned and he came to know that the said plot was already disposed of by Kiran Pal, the present petitioner, on the basis of power of attorney No.4124 dated 14.06.1983 registered with Sub-Registrar of Delhi and that however, the said power of attorney was forged. Further allegations are that even some other lady impersonated Sharbati Devi at the instance of Kiran Pal and hence, Kiran Pal on the basis of forged power of attorney and by producing some other lady as Sharbati Devi had sold the said plot on 07.07.2008 to Tarshpal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that power of attorney in his favour was executed by the real owners on 14.06.1983 and the same was genuine one. It is further contended that he never produced any lady as Sharbati Devi. Bail application of the petitioner has been opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that there are serious allegations against the petitioner as he is the main accused and that his custodial interrogation is required to know as to who was the lady who impersonated Sharbati Devi. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. Allegations against the petitioner – accused are serious in nature. He is the main accused. His custodial interrogation is necessary to arrive at the conclusion as to who was the lady who impersonated Sharbati Devi for getting the sale deed registered in favour of Tarshpal. Tarshpal has also filed civil suit against the present petitioner for cancellation of the sale deed and for recovery of amount when he came to know that some other lady was 2 CRM No.M-9202 of 2010 produced by the present petitioner as Sharbati Devi and that power of attorney was also forged one. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which concession of anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused. Hence, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Kiran Pal is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 4, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3