Crl. Misc. No.M-30877 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: November 10, 2010. Crl. Misc. No.M-30877 of 2010. Rajvinder Singh .. petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. . Respondent *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.S.K.Pipat, Sr., Advocate, with Mr.Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG., Punjab. Mr.Vikram Bali, Advocate, for the complainant. *** M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Jasjit Singh complainant alleging that the land co-owned by him has been sold under a fake Power of Attorney by Mohinder Singh to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1.10 crores. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-30877 of 2010 contended that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. He has purchased the property after paying sale consideration to the attorney for complainant. The registered power of attorney in favour of Mohinder Singh is dated 18.05.1987 and that the same has not been cancelled till the date of execution of the sale deed dated 26.07.2010. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner is an affluent person having resources and that he had on the basis of few agreements of sale of January, February and July, 2010, received earnest money and paid the sale consideration to the seller Mohinder Singh holding power of attorney for the complainant. Counsel for the complainant-respondent has intervened to contend that no power of attorney had ever been executed by the complainant in favour of Mohinder Singh. The State counsel, on the basis of the investigation conducted, informs that Wasika number against which the power of attorney purported to have been executed in favour of Mohinder Singh by Jasjit Singh, has been found to be not in consonance with the contents of the alleged power of attorney executed by one Kartar Singh in favour of Harjit Singh. Counsel for the petitioner disputes that Wasika number is 385 and not 785. It has also been informed by the complainant that the sale deed executed by the alleged power of attorney has been challenged before the Civil Court. . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-30877 of 2010 I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the State counsel and counsel for the complainant. I am of the opinion that on the basis of a forged power of attorney, the land of an NRI has been sold without payment of any sale consideration in presence of the Sub Registrar. The investigation is at threshold. The source of payment by the petitioner is also debatable, at this stage. It appears to be a case whether custodial interrogation is required to thoroughly determine as to how the steps have been taken to grab the property of an absentee by Mohinder Singh and the petitioner. No ground is made out for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 10, 2010. rka . . . 3