CRM No. M-9733 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-9733 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.4.2009 Surinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. DPS Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. S.S. Antal, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered against him under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. The allegations levelled in the FIR are that the complainant Shital Kaur was defrauded by the accused by forging partnership-deed, thereby causing substantial loss to her. The complainant Shital Kaur alleged that she had never executed any document giving any right or authority to Gurbax Singh, Rajender Kumar and Surender Kumar (present petitioner) over the land in question. However, in the absence of the complainant, Gurbax Singh in connivance with Surender Kumar and Rajender Kumar sons of Babu Ram had started illegal construction CRM No. M-9733 of 2009 2 on the land in question. Resultantly, an application was submitted to the Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Patiala with a request to stop the illegal construction over the land. As a result thereof, the accused started threatening the complainant with dire consequences. The complainant also alleged forgery of her signatures on various documents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various documents to show that the petitioner was already having dealing with the complainant. Even a Special Power of Attorney had been executed in his favour and he had been inducted as a partner in a petrol pump by executing a partnership deed. He has also submitted that two separate inquiries were conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police (D), Patiala and Superintendent of Police (D), Patiala. Both of these officers had come to the conclusion that the dispute was basically of civil nature. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail and has referred to the Special Power of Attorney allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner. He has highlighted that the original power of attorney executed by the complainant, contained seven clauses but the petitioner had forged the 8th clause therein which reads: “8. To settle and accept partition with my partner and give possession of the land” According to the counsel for the State, the said Special Power of Attorney had been misused by the accused/petitioner to CRM No. M-9733 of 2009 3 commit the crime as alleged in the FIR. This apart, learned counsel emphasized that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to get to the bottom of the entire conspiracy. Moreover, in view of the gravity of offence and seriousness of allegations, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. According to the counsel, number of queries are to be made from the petitioner which he may not answer if armed with a protective order. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been alleged by the complainant that her signatures were forged on various documents and interpolations were made at various places. Particular reference has been made to Special Power of Attorney, wherein a separate clause was added by the petitioner. It is, therefore, clear that the investigation agency may require the petitioner for the purpose of interrogation. In view of the seriousness of the allegations against him, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. In this view of the matter, no ground for anticipatory bail is made out. The petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE April 28, 2009 'rajpal'