CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: July 01, 2009 Varinder Pal Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has preferred this petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against her under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 IPC at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana, vide FIR No.311 dated 14th November, 2008. The complaint was lodged by sister of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner in connivance with Gurjit Kaur and Bagel Singh Lambardar, executed a sale-deed in favour of one Gian Singh on 10th February, 2005. According to the complainant this sale-deed was forged as some lady was produced who impersonated as mother of the petitioner and signed the necessary documents. The consideration received in respect of the sale was also misappropriated by the petitioners. The Lambardar connived with the petitioner and the CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 2 unknown woman, who impersonated as Mohinderjit Kaur (mother of the petitioner). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was owner of half share of the plot which is alleged to have been sold and she was duly authorised by her mother to sell the plot. This apart, there was a delay of 3½ years in lodging the FIR. According to the counsel, no recovery has to be effected from the petitioner and thus she deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that after ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, she refused to answer any relevant query of the investigating agency despite repeated opportunities. Learned counsel has also submitted that petitioner's joining the investigation had served no purpose as she did not cooperate with the investigating agency in any manner. She refused to disclose the name of the woman who impersonated as Mohinderjit Kaur at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of Gian Singh. Learned counsel referred to orders dated 22.1.2009, 19.2.2009, 18.3.2009 and 18.5.2009 in order to contend that the court was apprised on these dates about the totally non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner. Learned State counsel has also referred to the information received from Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, New Delhi, according to which mother of the petitioner, namely, Mohinderjit Kaur was not in the country on the date when the sale-deed CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 3 was executed, clearly showing that somebody impersonated in her place. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. On May 18, 2009 while addressing the arguments, learned State counsel had produced a report dated 12th March, 2009 received from Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, New Delhi and the same was taken on record as Mark 'A'. According to the said report, Mohinderjit Kaur departed from the country on 7th August, 2002 by flight SQ-407 and arrived back in the country on 21st April, 2007 by flight No. CI-181 at IGI Airport, New Delhi. The sale-deed is said to have been executed on 10th February, 2005 wherein the petitioner and her mother are vendors. Apparently, mother of the petitioner (Mohinderjit Kaur) was not in the country on the date, the sale-deed was executed. Despite serious allegations against the petitioner, she was granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail and allowed to join the investigation. However, repeated stand of the investigating agency before this Court remained that the petitioner had refused to cooperate with the investigating agency. She refused to disclose the name of woman who impersonated in place of Mohinderjit Kaur. The investigating agency, it appears, has been making efforts to conclude the investigation. It also sought information from the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer as regards the date of departure and arrival of Mohinderjit Kaur from the country. However, due to non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner, the CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 4 investigation of the case is still pending. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has disentitled herself to the concession of anticipatory bail. The observations of the Apex Court in the case reported as State represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, decided on 3rd September, 1997, are relevant in the context of this case. The same are as under:- “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” In the present case, the investigating agency apprised this CRM No. M-31868 of 2008 5 court on various occasions that after being granted an ad-interim pre-arrest bail by this Court, the attitude of the petitioner with the investigating agency remained totally non-cooperative. Though she appeared before the Investigating Officer, but refused to answer any relevant query. She refused to disclose the name and whereabouts of the woman who impersonated as Mohinderjit Kaur. I, therefore, find no ground to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The present bail petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 01, 2009 'rajpal'