Crl. Misc. No.M-6084 of 2011 :1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-6084 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.02.2011 Raghubir Singh .. Petitioner Versus Lakhan and others .. Respondents Present:- Mr.Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petition has been filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.'- for short) seeking cancellation of bail granted to Lakhan and Dharampal (respondents No.1 and 2) in FIR No.781 dated 05.11.2010 registered at Police Station City Jind for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC- for short). The petitioner-Raghbir Singh filed a criminal complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, inter alia alleging that he had purchased one Maruti Zen car through EKANSH Sub Agency, Jind, which was financed by Megma Finance Limited, having its registered office at Ambala. Sunil Kumar (accused Noi.1) agent of Megma Finance Limited in May, 2008 forcibly took the said car from the house of the petitioner by alleging that the petitioner had not paid regular instalments and, therefore, he was taking the car as per orders passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The complainant-petitioner made a complaint against Megma Finance Limited before the District Consumer Forum at Jind. During the course of evidence, the complainant came to know that Sunil Kumar (accused No.1) Crl. Misc. No.M-6084 of 2011 :2:: in collusion with other accused had sold his car to someone else. The petitioner in order to find out where the car had been sold, contacted the Registering Authority (M.V.) at Jind and found that many objectionable and forged documents were prepared and signed by the accused in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner obtained copies of all the documents and he came to know that the car had been sold to one Mahender Singh. The stamp papers had been purchased in the name of the petitioner on 25.03.2009 and a false affidavit (Annexure P-7) was prepared by forging the signatures of the petitioner. It was deposed in the affidavit (Annexure P-7) that the petitioner had sold his car to Mahender Singh. The signatures of the petitioner on the affidavit (Annexure P-7) have been forged and have been identified by Lakhan-accused No.3 (now respondent No.1) which clearly showed his mala fide intention. Certain other forms had also been filed and signed in the name of the petitioner for obtaining no objection certificate from the Registering Authority (M.V.), Jind, by the accused. The complainant, it is stated, does not know who had prepared the forged documents in his name. However, he (petitioner) came to know from Mahender Singh that Dharampal-accused No.2 (now respondent No.2) had sold him the car with the assurance to get the ownership transferred. Dharampal (respondent No.2) had informed Mahender Singh that the petitioner (complainant) is SDO at UHBVNI, Jind and hence he cannot be brought before Mahender Singh. However, he took full responsibility to get the ownership transferred in the name of Mahender Singh. The complainant (petitioner) also had apprehension that certain employee of the Registering Authority (M.V.) at Jind were involved. The complainant reported the matter to Police Station City Jind on 04.03.2010 but no action was taken by the police against the accused as they had connections with politicians and bureaucrats. The accused filed an application for pre-arrest bail, Crl. Misc. No.M-6084 of 2011 :3:: which has been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide order dated 24.01.2011 (Annexure P-1). It was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the accused persons i.e. Lakhan and Dharampal (respondents No.1 and 2) have already joined the investigation. Their specimen signatures have been obtained and the same have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Its report is still awaited. They (respondents No.1 and 2) were not wanted for any other purpose. In the circumstances, bail order that was already granted to them was confirmed. It was made clear that if the hand-writing matches with the hand-writing on the papers submitted to obtain new registration certificate, the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to seek custody as per rule. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents No.1 and 2 had committed forgery in respect of the affidavit (Annexure P-7); besides, they had sold the car which is in the name of the petitioner to one Mahender Singh. Therefore, the order granting them (respondents No.1 and 2) the concession of pre-arrest bail is liable to be cancelled. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that respondents No.1 and 2 have joined the investigation and their custody is not required for the purposes of investigation. The case is based primarily on documentary evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that the specimen signatures of the accused (respondents No.1 and 2) have been obtained and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Its report is still awaited. Besides, liberty has been given to the Investigating Officer to seek their custody, in case, the hand- writings of respondents No.1 and 2 matches with the hand-writing on the papers submitted to obtain new registration certificate. There is nothing to show that after the grant of pre-arrest bail to respondents No.1 and 2 vide order dated 24.01.2011 (Annexure P-1), the concession has been misused Crl. Misc. No.M-6084 of 2011 :4:: by them. Rejection of bail is on one footing but cancellation is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual and is not to be lightly resorted to. It is only when an accused who has been granted bail tries to interfere with the due course of justice or intends to tamper with the evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation then the bail granted is liable to be cancelled. Besides, in an application seeking cancellation of bail, the Courts are normally not to examine the orders granting bail and its primarily be seen whether there has been any misuse of the concession and privilege of bail granted to the accused. As already notice, nothing has been stated that the accused (respondents No.1 and 2) have misused the concession of bail which would warrant the cancellation of bail granted to them. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has stated that the accused (respondents No.1 and 2) have been threatening the petitioner to withdraw the case. However, the same is a mere bald assertion and there is nothing to substantiate the said assertion as to when the threats were held out; besides, no report has been lodged with respect to the said threats. In the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the present petition. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) February 25, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet