In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:16.9.2010 Vandana Sidhu alias Vandana Sharma and another .....Petitioners v. U.T. Administration, Chandigarh .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.D. Sharma, standing counsel for U.T., Chandigarh. Mr. Vikram K. Chaudhri, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that he does not wish to file any reply. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offence sunder Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B Indian Penal Code. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Mohanjeet Kaur Sidhu wife of late Harraj Singh Sidhu. It has been alleged by the complainant that she is the widow of Harraj Singh Sidhu who died on 5.6.2009 in USA. The complainant's husband was a big landlord and also Managing Director of a company known as Mohina Properties (Pvt.) Limited which deals in property matters. The petitioner No.1, it is alleged, is the wife of Mohsin Ali and was employed in the company Mohina Property (Pvt.) Ltd. She looked after the entire affairs of the company and Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [2] became over all in-charge of the affairs of the Company. The company was involved in various Court cases with its tenants and various other persons. In order to defend the same, petitioner No.1 had obtained blank signatures of the husband of the complainant on number of blank papers including power of attorneys for engaging advocates and file pleadings. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant was diagnosed with Prostate cancer in January 2008 and went on to develop bone and liver Metastasis in April 2009. He underwent various tests and treatments besides was hospitalized even. He died on 5.6.2009. After his death the intention of petitioner No.1 became dishonest and she started withdrawing amounts from the bank accounts of Harraj Singh Sidhu of which she had signed blank cheques. When the complainant came to know regarding the dishonest intention of petitioner No.1, her son informed the banks not to encash the cheques. He also filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining petitioner No.1 from misusing the blank cheques as well as blank signed papers of Harraj Singh Sidhu. The said case is pending in the civil Court at Chandigarh. It is alleged that with the dishonest and mala fide intention to grab the properties of the husband of the complainant, petitioner No.1 got prepared forged and fabricated Will said to be dated 29.4.2009 whereas the husband of the complainant on that day was admitted in the hospital in a serious condition and was unable to move without the help of family members. Petitioner No.1 in connivance with petitioner No.2 and accused No.3, namely, Shri Gurmit Singh (Giani) got prepared a forged and fabricated marriage certificate to cheat the complainant and the family members alleging that the husband of the complainant had got married with Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [3] petitioner No.1 on 7.3.1994. The said certificate was issued by accused No.3 Gurmit Singh (Giani) and was witnessed by petitioner No.2. The husband of the complainant never married petitioner No.1 and his signatures on the marriage certificate are forged and fabricated. No marriage ceremonies were ever solemnized between Harraj Singh Sidhu and petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1, it is alleged, with the sole motive to grab the properties of the husband of the complainant after his death in connivance with petitioner No.2 got prepared a forged and fabricated marriage certificate. Petitioner No.1 also started collecting evidence after forging and preparing false documents. The photo copy of the alleged forged marriage certificate issued by accused No.3 Gurmit Singh (Giani) was attached. Harraj Singh Sidhu husband of the complainant, it is submitted, never got any divorce from the complainant. Rather, he lived with the family members at the addresses as mentioned in the complaint and there was no occasion on the part of Harraj Singh Sidhu to re-marry himself with petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1, in fact, had been married with Gurinder Singh on 1.12.1995 at Patiala. Unfortunately, said Gurinder Singh died in a car accident on 2.4.1996. Out of the wedlock between Gurinder Singh and petitioner No.1 they had a son, namely, Paramraj Singh who was born on 9.11.1996. In this regard petitioner No.1 had entered the name of her son in the office of Registrar, Births and Deaths, Municipal Council, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) where the father's name of Paramraj Singh is entered as Gurinder Singh. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 got her son Paramraj Singh admitted in Dagshai Public School, Dagshai Cantt., District Solan (HP) on 19.4.2003 with the date of birth as 9.11.1996. The father's name of Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [4] Paramraj Singh as given by petitioner No.1 was Gurinder Singh with the address of House No.658, PSB Housing Society, Sector 49, Chandigarh. Petitioner No.1 then got her son Paramraj Sharma migrated/admitted in Yadvindra Public School, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali). Petitioner No.1 filled-up a form in Yadvindra Public School at the time of admission and she gave the name of her younger son as Yashraj Sharma whose father's name was given as Mohsin Sharma and mother's name as Vandana Sharma (petitioner No.1). Petitioner No.1 for taking a school transfer certificate of her son Paramraj Sharma from Dagshai Public School to Yadvindra Public School, Mohali submitted an affidavit on 9.3.2009 stating that father's name of Paramraj Sharma had been shown as Gurinder but she wants the transfer certificate of her son in the name of her husband Mohsin Ali. The photo copy of the affidavit signed by petitioner No.1 which was given to Jagjit Singh, Principal was attached. On the basis of the said affidavit given by petitioner No.1, the school transfer certificate of Paramraj Sharma dated 14.3.2009 was issued stating that Paramraj Sharma was the son of Shri Mohsin instead of Gurinder. On the basis of the said school transfer certificate issued by the Principal of Dagshai Public School, Paramraj Sharma son of the petitioner No.1 was admitted at Yadvindra Public School, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) as son of Mohsin Sharma. It is alleged that when petitioner No.1 came to know regarding the death of Harraj Singh Sidhu, the husband of the complainant, she with a dishonest and mala fide intention to cheat the complainant again approached the Principal of Dagshai Public School with a request that in the transfer certificate of Paramraj Singh, father's name be corrected as “Harraj Singh Sidhu” instead of Mohsin. Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [5] Jagjit Singh, Principal of Dagshai Public School, it is alleged, in connivance with petitioner No.1 to cheat the complainant got prepared a forged and fabricated school transfer certificate and again issued another school transfer certificate dated 31.5.2009 entering and changing the name of Paramraj Sharma to Paramraj Singh Sidhu and father's name from Mohsin to Harraj Singh Sidhu whereas the date of of admission as well as the date of birth was the same. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 had committed all these forgeries in connivance with other co-accused. Rather, she committed so many forgeries after submitting fake documents. It is also alleged that she got a passport bearing No.E-2842841 from the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh on 13.8.2002 mentioning her name as Vandana and this passport had been issued on the address of House No.63, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh and by giving the name of her husband in the said passport as Mohsin Ali. The petitioner No.1 again got two other passports mentioning her name as Sharma Vandana wife of Mohsin Ali and the address of petitioner No.1 had been shown as House No.658, Sector 49-A, Punjab and Sind Bank Society, Chandigarh and House No.63, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 also cheated the Passport Office in obtaining the passports of her sons after submitting forged and fabricated documents. She got issued a passport from the Passport Office, Jalandhar in the name of Paramraj Singh son of Mohsin. The said passport is bearing No.E-4254680 and was issued on 10.3.2003. The date of birth of Paramraj Singh has been given as 9.11.1996. The said passport had been obtained by petitioner No.1 after forging the birth certificate, ration card etc. of her son Paramraj Singh whereas as per his birth certificate which was entered in the Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [6] office of Registrar, Births and Deaths at Mohali, the name of the father of Paramraj Singh is Gurinder Singh. In the birth certificate which had been submitted with the Passport Office, Jalandhar by petitioner No.1 the father's name had been changed from Gurinder Singh to Mohsin. Petitioner No.1 also got passport of her second son from the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh in the name of Irfan Ali whereas she had already given the name of her son as Yashraj Sharma and his father's name as Mohsin Ali. This passport had been got issued by petitioner No.1 after submitting the forged and fabricated documents with the passport office in the name of her second son Irfan Ali. It is further submitted that the intention of petitioner No.1 had always remained dishonest. She had married one Vivek Aggarwal on 2.12.1999. When the said marriage could not succeed, she with sole motive to grab ransom amount from Vivek Aggarwal got lodged FIR No.28 dated 22.1.2000 alleging commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 323 IPC with Police Station (Central), Phase-8, Mohali against Vivek Aggarwal. In the said FIR allegations had been levelled regarding demand of dowry against Vivek Aggarwal as well as against four others who were family members of the in-laws of petitioner No.1. Ultimately, on the basis of a compromise with Vivek Aggarwal, this Court quashed the FIR on 21.7.2006 and she was paid Rs.2.5 Lacs by way of bank draft. This according to the complainant shows that petitioner No.1 blackmailed even Vivek Aggarwal and his other family members. Petitioner No.1 during the pendency of cases with Vivek Aggarwal solemnized her marriage with one Mohsin Ali on 15.6.2002 and she mentioned her name as Noor Jahan instead of Vandana. Petitioner No.1 in connivance with other co-accused Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [7] got prepared forged and fabricated documents and started using these documents for personal gains and loss to the complainant. The accused after preparing those forged and fabricated documents cheated the complainant as well as the Passport Office and the public at large. Therefore, it was submitted that all the accused in connivance with each other committed offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. It was prayed for the registration of FIR against the said accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that legal and valid marriage was solemnized between petitioner No.1 and the deceased Harraj Singh Sidhu on 7.3.1994. Out of the marriage they had a son, namely, Paramraj Singh, who was born on 9.11.1996. It is submitted that Harraj Singh Sidhu had married again during the lifetime of his first wife who is the complainant. Harraj Singh Sidhu, it is submitted, had executed a Will dated 29.4.2009 in favour of petitioner No.1. The Will which has been set-up by the complainant is also dated 29.4.2009, therefore, it is submitted that it cannot be said by the complainant that Harraj Singh Sidhu was seriously unwell and unable to execute the Will on 29.4.2009. As such, the said Will in favour of petitioner No.1 is legal and valid. It is submitted that on account of the fact that a Will has been executed in favour of petitioner No.1 by the deceased Harraj Singh Sidhu, the present FIR has been lodged so as to pressurize her to give up her claim to the properties of Harraj Singh Sidhu. It is submitted that in respect of the allegations regarding the forgery of Passport, FIR No.86 dated 10.3.2010 was registered at Police Station, Division No.4, Jalandhar in which petitioner No.1 has been granted bail vide order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. It was observed in the said order granting bail that matter Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [8] regarding the forgery of passport had already been alleged in the present FIR. It is further submitted that the Hand-writing Expert vide his opinion dated 28.6.2010 has given an opinion that the signatures of the testator Harraj Singh Sidhu on the Will dated 29.4.2009 in favour of petitioner No.1 were the same as that of his standard signatures. It is also submitted that civil litigation between the parties with respect to the estate of Harraj Singh Sidhu is also pending. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail. In response, learned counsel for the U.T. Administration and the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition seeking pre-arrest bail. It is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail. They have indulged in large scale forgery and their custodial interrogation is necessary. It is submitted that the Will dated 29.4.2009 said to be in favour of petitioner No.1 was sent to the Laboratory of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and opinion dated 14.5.2010 has been received, which is to the effect that the signatures on the Will dated 29.4.2009 in favour of the petitioner No.1 were not the same and these were of different authorship. Besides, it is submitted that it is to be ascertained as to who is the author of the Will dated 29.4.2009 which has been set-up by petitioner No.1. Signatures of Harraj Singh Sidhu in the Notary register in respect of the Will dated 29.4.2009 in favour of petitioner No.1 were also forged. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that petitioner No.1 is an impostor. She was initially married with one Gurinder Singh. Thereafter, she is alleged to have solemnized her marriage with one Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [9] Mohsin Ali followed by her marriage with Mohsin Sharma. Thereafter, she is said to have married Vivek Aggarwal and then in between with the husband of the complainant. It is submitted that no marriage was solemnized between petitioner No.1 and the husband of the complainant Harraj Singh Sidhu and no ceremonies of marriage were ever performed. The alleged marriage even otherwise during the subsistence of marriage of Harraj Singh Sidhu with the complainant who is the only wife would be void ab initio. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 had filed a suit for declaration claiming that she is the wife of Harraj Singh Sidhu along with the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit the prayer for grant of temporary injunction has been declined. It is further submitted that the manner in which son of petitioner No.1, namely, Paramraj Singh has been shown initially as son of Gurinder Singh and thereafter as son of Mohsin Ali alias Mohsin Sharma and then after the death of Harraj Singh Sidhu it has been got changed surreptitiously as Paramraj Singh Sidhu son of Harraj Singh Sidhu goes to show that she had been acting with the clear motive and intention to grab the property of Harraj Singh Sidhu. Therefore, she is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners, has, however, reiterated that the allegations that have been made in the FIR are to be established by leading evidence and the petitioners have already joined the investigation, therefore, they are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the custody of the petitioners is required to unearth the entire facts and circumstances of the case. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [10] the learned counsel for the parties. The allegations as have been made are that the complainant was married to Harraj Singh Sidhu and that petitioner No.1 was never married to said Harraj Singh Sidhu. However, with a view to grab the property of Harraj Singh Sidhu, she had shown herself to be married to Harraj Singh Sidhu, who died in USA on 5.6.2009. According to the complainant, petitioner No.1 was working as Manager of the company of Harraj Singh Sidhu, namely, Mohina Properties (Pvt.) Limited. She had looked after the entire affairs of the company and became over all in-charge. She had obtained blank signatures of the husband of the complainant on various documents and cheques. She started withdrawing amounts by encashing the blank cheques from the banks after the demise of Harraj Singh Sidhu. It has also been alleged that petitioner No.1 had set-up a Will dated 29.4.2009 said to have been executed in her favour whereas there was no occasion for Harraj Singh Sidhu to have executed a Will in favour of petitioner No.1. The FSL report has been received from the Laboratory of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. According to the learned counsel for the State the signatures of Harraj Singh Sidhu were compared on the Will dated 29.4.2009 set-up by petitioner No.1 as also with his signatures in the Notary's register. These were found to be not matching with the admitted standard signatures of Harraj Singh Sidhu and opinion has been given that these were of different authorship. Petitioner No.1 has also obtained an opinion dated 28.6.2010 from Devendra Prasad, Forensic Documents Expert. He has given the opinion that the questioned signatures on the Will dated 29.4.2009 set-up by Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [11] petitioner No.1 and that of Harraj Singh Sidhu were the same and the person who wrote the standard signatures also wrote the questioned signatures. The field of investigation is the domain of the Police authorities and this Court in proceedings for grant of pre-arrest bail is not to go into the rival contentions of the parties to ascertain whether the offence has been made out or not for that is the domain of the Police. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the large number of issues involved and to unearth the truth as to the allegations that have been levelled, in my view, it would be necessary to have the custodial interrogation of petitioner No.1. Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, it may be noticed that she is sister of petitioner No.1 and a marginal witness to the Will dated 29.4.2009 set-up by petitioner No.1 in her favour. Therefore, her custodial interrogation would be unnecessary. The custodial interrogation of petitioner No.1 would enable the investigating authorities to ascertain the actual facts and circumstances which have led to the litigation that has been launched and also to determine as to whether Paramraj Singh is indeed the son of Harraj Singh Sidhu as has now been claimed by petitioner No.1. There are other various issues also which would require to be gone into and investigated. It has been brought on record that petitioner no.1 had changed the father's name of her son Paramraj from time to time. The reason and purpose for the same is to be ascertained. The Will which has been set-up by petitioner no.1 is a subject matter of consideration before the civil Court in which the estate of Harraj Singh Sidhu is in dispute. The question regarding validity of the Will is primarily the domain of the civil Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the same Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [12] would be required to be gone into as prima facie it has not been shown by petitioner No.1 that she was married to Harraj Singh Sidhu by performance of religious ceremonies. Moreover, there are two conflicting opinions as regards the signatures of Harraj Singh Sidhu on the Will set-up by petitioner No.1. Therefore, it is required to be considered as to whether there has been any foul play in the Will set-up by petitioner No.1 in her favour. Besides, considerations governing the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In a case where pre-arrest bail is sought the advantage of custodial interrogation of eliciting more and useful information and material from an accused is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed qua petitioner No.1. However, petitioner No.2 in the event of her arrest shall be admitted to bail on her furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. She (petitioner No.2) shall join the investigation as and when called and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. In case the petitioner No.1 surrenders before the Police within two days from the receipt of copy of this order, her application for regular bail after the expiry of the period of Police remand, if any, shall be considered within one day. Cr. Misc. No.M-34736 of 2009 [13] September 16, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*