Crl. Misc. No.M-26892 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: December 06, 2010. (1) Crl. Misc. No.M-26892 of 2010. Jarnail Singh .. Petitioner * * * (2) Crl. Misc. No.M-26939 of 2010. Gian Singh .. Petitioner * * * (3) Crl. Misc. No.M-28588 of 2010. Gurlal Singh .. Petitioner * * * (4) Crl. Misc. No.M-29388 of 2010. Pritpal Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. . Respondent *** . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-26892 of 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-26892 of 2010. Mr.A.P.S.Deol, Sr., Advocate, with Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-26939 of 2010 and in Crl.Misc.No.M-28588 of 2010. Mr.H.S.Sangha, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-29388 of 2010. Mr.Abhishek Chautala, AAG., Punjab. Ms.Kanwal S. Walia, Advocate, for the complainant. *** M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of the above noted four petitions i.e., Crl. Misc. No.M-26892 of 2010, filed by Jarnail Singh; Crl. Misc. No.M-26939 of 2010, filed by Gian Singh; Crl. Misc. No.M- 28588 of 2010, filed by Gurlal Singh; and Crl. Misc. No.M-29388 of 2010, filed by Pritpal Singh, in a case registered at the instance of Milan Jhaveri alleging that land measuring 4 bighas 7 biswas situated in village Kishanpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi was self acquired property of his father Chander Sen Jhaveri, resident of Mumbai. Chander Sen died on 06.02.1994 leaving his wife, two sons and one daughter. His family members used to visit the property situated in Dera Bassi and never found anyone in possession of said property. In the month of April 2010, they came to learn that Babu Singh, non- petitioner, Gian Singh and the Directors of M/s Swami Realtors and Development Private Limited had encroached upon and sold the . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-26892 of 2010 land belonging to Chander Sen. It transpired from the revenue record that Babu Singh had got the property transferred in his name on the basis of a fabricated Will dated 05.05.1983 and Death Certificate dated 03.02.1985 whereas the father of the complainant had actually died on 06.02.1994. Babu Singh after purchasing the property sold the same to Gian Singh petitioner vide sale deed dated 25.11.2009. The said Gian Singh further sold the property to M/s Swami Realtors and Development Private Limited. The property is worth crores of rupees and the accused had fraudulently got the property transferred in their name causing loss to the complainant and other legal representatives. On behalf of Jarnail Singh, petitioner, Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate, has argued that he is not named in the FIR. The main allegations are against Babu Singh to have forged a Will and Death Certificate of Chander Sen Jhaveri. He got the mutation sanctioned in his favour and further sold the same to Gian Singh for a sum of Rs.28 lacs. So far as Gian Singh, is concerned, it is claimed that he is bona fide purchaser of the property and has got civil litigation regarding the land in dispute. Gian Singh has sold the property to M/s Swami Realtors and Development Private Limited, for Rs.30 lacs. So far as Jarnail Singh is concerned, he is neither the beneficiary nor the signatory of any document. Jarnail Singh contested the mutation proceedings through his power of attorney . . . 3 Crl. Misc. No.M-26892 of 2010 Makhan Singh. He had allegedly given a statement in favour of Babu Singh on the basis of which statement, mutation was sanctioned in favour of Babu Singh. Jarnail Singh, claims that he had executed power of attorney in favour of Makhan Singh and had contested the mutation proceedings being in possession of the property in dispute. He claims that he has got nothing to do with the alleged fictitious Will in favour of Babu Singh or the sale deed by Babu Singh in favour of Gian Singh. Gurlal Singh is a witness to the sale deed dated 25.11.2009, executed by Babu Singh in favour of Gian Singh regarding 4 bighas 7 biswas of land. He claims that he is neither the beneficiary nor connected with the sale deed, in any manner. Shri A.P.S.Deol, Sr., Advocate, on behalf of Gurlal Singh claims that merely because he is an attesting witness of the sale deed dated 25.11.2009, and having joined investigation he should be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Mr.H.S.Sangha, Advocate, on behalf of Pritpal Singh petitioner, has vehemently argued that he is neither named in the FIR nor any specific part has been attributed to him. It was submitted that he has been involved in the case merely because his mobile number is mentioned under the name of Babu Singh on the sale deed dated 25.11.2009. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the police file and perused the various documents made available by counsel for the complainant. . . . 4 Crl. Misc. No.M-26892 of 2010 A perusal of the police file indicates that vide a sale deed dated 02.07.1974, Partap Chand Chopra sold his 8 bighas 14 biswas of land to Chander Sen and Mohinder Pal Seth, resident of House No.682, Sector 8-B, in equal shares. On the basis of unregistered Will of Chander Sen, 4 bighas of land was mutated in the name of Babu Singh. The fabricated Will is attested by one Vikram Singh and Budh Singh. It appears that they both are fictitious persons as per the information derived from Paramjit, Gurlal, Bhupinder Singh. These persons impersonated the attesting witnesses. The property of Chander Sen was purchased by Gian Singh. Gian Singh has not been able to establish the source of Rs.28 lacs with him. During the course of investigation, he had sold the said property to M/s Swami Realtors and Development Private Limited, for Rs.30 lacs. Jarnail Singh resisted the mutation proceedings claiming that he has been in possession through Makhan Singh as power of attorney. He made a statement in favour of Babu Singh on the basis of which the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Babu Singh. So far as Gian Singh is concerned, his connivance with Babu Singh is writ large from various documents. Jarnail Singh had at one stage, intimated the Tehsildar, Dera Bassi, that on the basis of fake Will and fabricated death Certificate, Vikram, Budh Singh, Babu Singh and Kehar Singh, Numberdar had wrongly suffered a decree in favour of Sant Ram. Sant Ram and his sons had suffered a decree in favour of Chander Sen and obtained ownership by a fictitious decree. Jarnail Singh is son of Sant Ram. . . . 5 Crl. Misc. No.M-26892 of 2010 Suit which was filed by Sant Ram against Chander Sen, in the said suit address of Chander Sen was mentioned as house No.682, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh, which is the address of Mohinderpal Seth who in equal share with Chander Sen had purchased the property in the year 1974. Jarnail Singh from the very beginning was in knowledge of the manner in which property had been transferred in the name of Babu Singh and then was transferred to Gian Singh. Connivance of Jarnail Singh complainant with other land grabbers is apparent from the police record and various litigation. He is apparently hand-in-glove with the main accused Babu Singh. No ground is made out to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to Jarnail Singh and Gian Singh. Gurlal Singh, no doubt, is not a beneficiary. He is a witness to the sale deed executed by Babu Singh main accused in favour of Gian Singh who has been held above to be not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The arrangement between Babu Singh and Gian Singh regarding the sale of the ill-gotten property by executing a sale deed dated 25.11.2009, executed by Babu Singh in favour of Gian Singh in which the petitioner Gurlal Singh is party indicates that he was also hand-in-glove with the main accused. He is also not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. So far as Pritpal Singh is concerned, he is stated to be a friend of Paramjit Singh grandson of sister of Babu Singh. He is alleged to have masterminded the transfer of property on the basis of the Will dated 05.05.1983 in favour of Babu Singh and then . . . 6 Crl. Misc. No.M-26892 of 2010 subsequent transfer to Gian Singh vide sale deed dated 25.11.2009. The phone number of the petitioner mentioned in the sale deed is indicative of his involvement in the entire transaction. The custodial interrogation of all the co-accused is necessary. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. All the above said four petitions are dismissed. Interim orders vacated. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 06, 2010. rka . . . 7