IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-20978 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.8.2010 Lalit Kumar Garg ......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana. **** ORDER The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Lalit Kumar Garg in case FIR No. 246 dated 6.7.2009 under Sections 418/419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 23.7.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case as neither he is named in the FIR nor he has played any role in any manner with regard to alleged offence. The petitioner is neither beneficiary nor a witness to any document alleged by the prosecution. Only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co- accused, he has been implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per investigation conducted by the police, the General Power of Attorney is in favour of Anil Kumar and he sold the alleged plot to co- Crl.Misc. No.M-20978 of 2010 [2] accused Pankaj Sharma who further re-sold to one Devinder Chandila. The petitioner is not even remotely connected with the alleged offence. As per allegations against the petitioner that he produced one Laxmi Anand whereas petitioner is neither a witness nor beneficiary and he was not connected in any manner with the alleged occurrence. Mr.S.S.Mor, learned Sr.DAG, Haryana opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner has played a very active role in producing a lady who impersonated herself as Laxmi Anand, the original owner and Power of Attorney was verified at his instance. The role of the petitioner was mentioned in the disclosure statement of the co-accused and moreover the petitioner has not joined the proceedings and PO proceedings have been initiated against him. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of FIR and other documents available on the file. As per allegations in the FIR, a plot measuring 500 square yards was sold by impersonating one Laxmi Anand, the original owner of the plot on the basis of forged Power of Attorney. The said plot was sold to Pankaj Sharma and the same was further re-sold to one Devinder Chandila. It was mentioned in the disclosure statement made by co-accused Pankaj Sharma that the lady who impersonated Laxmi Anand, the original owner of plot was arranged by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not attended court proceedings and PO proceedings have been initiated against him. Crl.Misc. No.M-20978 of 2010 [3] Keeping in view the allegations and specific role of the petitioner in making arrangement of a lady for impersonation of Laxmi Anand, the owner of the plot, no ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail. Moreover, the PO proceedings are pending against the petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 2, 2010. raghav