Crl. Misc. No.M-13464 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-13464 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.05.2010 Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of concession of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.80 dated 20.07.2008 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Nabha. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that three other co-accused of the petitioner have been granted bail. It is further contended that Jaspal Singh, who is similarly situated and at par with the present petitioner, filed Crl. Misc. No.M-10705 of 2010 in which Notice of Motion is issued for 16.07.2010 and meantime, interim bail has been granted. The case of the present petitioner is different from the three other accused who have been granted bail. The allegation against them are not specific. Without expressing anything on merit with respect to the case Crl. Misc. No.M-13464 of 2010 2 of Jaspal Singh, in which a final order has yet to be passed, the allegations against the present petitioner are that Sukhwinder Singh is the head of the gang and is very active and clever person with a mischievous mind, who by way of preparing forged Agreement to Sell, witnessed it himself and also become a mediator commission agent and took his commission in advance for the execution of sale deed. It is further alleged that on investigation, it was found that the `Farad' was forged. In Village Narike, no person of the name of Hari Singh Patwari, who prepared the said `Farad' exists. He also received a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of Sukhdev Singh. He introduced false owner of the land and embezzled lacs of rupees from the complainant. The petitioner is the main accused and the master mind behind the fraud. The allegations require investigation for which custodial interrogation may be necessary and thus, the concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the present petitioner. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 17.05.2010 JUDGE gurpreet