Crl. Misc. No.M-15445 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-15445 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 24, 2011 Gurbans Rai …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The allegation against the petitioner is that he being a lambardar has identified Roshni Devi, owner of a plot by virtue of sale deed dated March 13, 2009. As per the allegations of complainant Ram Kumar, the other accused in collusion with each other had executed a sale deed dated September 3, 2010 by obtaining forged signatures and thumb impressions by producing another lady in place of Roshni Devi. As Roshni Devi did not appear before the Sub-Registrar, the petitioner had allegedly identified an Crl. Misc. No.M-15445 of 2011 [2] impersonator. It was the duty of the petitioner as Lambardar to satisfy himself regarding Roshni Devi who had allegedly sold the disputed plot of 88 sq. yards to Ram Kumar. Counsel for the petitioner had contended that the other accused have returned ` 4.50 lacs to the complainant out of the total sale consideration of ` 7.3 lacs. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that co-accused of the petitioner Tarsem Singh, Lambardar has been granted the concession of bail. The case of the petitioner cannot be treated at part with Tarsem Singh. Tarsem Singh was a witness to a sale deed in which he had identified Dharam Pal as purchaser while execution of a sale deed dated March 13, 2009. Even the petitioner had identified Dharam Pal who appeared on behalf of purchaser Roshni Devi. No fault can be found with the act of petitioner or that of Tarsem Singh, Lambardar while identifying the purchaser and seller in sale deed dated March 13, 2009 as the actual mischief seem to have been played while identifying an impersonator of Roshni Devi in a careless manner. No ground is made out for grant of pre- arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek regular bail by either surrender before the Illaqa Magistrate or before the investigating officer. August 24, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE Crl. Misc. No.M-15445 of 2011 [3]