CRM-M-22145-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] ::::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22145-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.07.2011. Brig. (Retd.) Pritam Singh Ghuman ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Mr. R.K.Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) CRM-39728-29-2011 Applications are allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-22145-2011 This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No.471 dated 20.10.2009, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B of the IPC, Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula. The FIR was lodged by Opinder Singh and Kingston Gill, both sons of Late S. Harbans Singh, in which they have alleged that their mother Late Smt. Pritam Kaur had executed a registered Will on 11.05.1993 bequeathing the property in dispute, namely, House No.103, Sector-6, Panchkula, in their favour. After the death of their mother, the Will dated 11.05.1993 came into operation and the property in dispute was re-allotted to the complainants by Haryana Urban Development Authority vide re-allotment letter No.7588 dated 15.07.2008. Thereafter, the complainants had sold the property in dispute to their neighbours R.S.Khadwalia and Sunita Saini. It is further alleged that their sister, namely, Amrita Sharma, in conspiracy with her lawyer (present petitioner), prepared a fake unregistered Will dated 20.12.2007 CRM-M-22145-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] ::::::::: which is not only drafted by the petitioner but also witnessed by him and Parvinder Kaur. The beneficiary under the Will dated 20.12.2007, namely, Amrita Sharma, was arrested and has been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 21.07.2011, whereas the petitioner has applied for anticipatory which has been dismissed by the learned Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly, the petitioner is not a beneficiary under the Will dated 20.12.2007 and had only authored and witnessed the same, secondly, the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman and handicapped, thirdly, the unregistered Will dated 20.12.2007 has already been recovered, therefore, it would be a ritual to take the petitioner in custody and then release him on regular bail and finally he has submitted that there is no evidence at present to hold that the signatures of Late Smt. Pritam Kaur on the unregistered Will dated 20.12.2007 are forged. He further submits that the signatures of Late Smt. Pritam Kaur on the GPA, which has been sent for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, as well as on the Will dated 20.12.2007, which has been set up by the accused Amrita Sharma, are likely to differ because of passage of time. He has also referred to the recommendations of the Law Commission to contend that where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance. Admittedly, the first Will dated 11.05.1993 in favour of both the sons of Late Smt. Pritam Kaur is a registered Will, whereas the subsequent Will dated 20.12.2007, in which the daughter of Late Smt. Pritam Kaur, namely, Amrita Sharma has also been included, is an unregistered Will. Nothing has been mentioned in the subsequent Will about the change of heart of the Testator and there is prima facie evidence at present in the shape of Government CRM-M-22145-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] ::::::::: Forensic Science Laboratory's report according to which the signatures of the Testator on the disputed Will dated 20.12.2007 do not tally with her admitted signatures. Moreover, one of the attesting witnesses of the Will dated 20.12.2007, namely Parvinder Kaur has also filed her affidavit in which she has alleged that a fraud has been committed upon her as she has never attested the said Will as a witness. Thus, the Testator was impersonated. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is an Ex.Serviceman who rose up to the rank of Brigadier and is a practicing lawyer, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. July 29, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE