Cr.Misc. M 769 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 769 of 2010 Date of decision:- 3.2.2010 Avtar Singh petitioner vs State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. GS Toor, Advocate. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Pb Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. Cr.Misc. M 3134 of 2010 Notice of motion. At the asking of the court Mr. Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Punjab accepts notice. Cr.Misc. M 769 of 2010 This order will dispose of four connected petitions filed by Avtar Singh (Cr.Misc. 769 M of 2010), Harinder Dass (Cr.Misc. 843 M of 2010), Manjit Singh (Cr.Misc. 2304 M of 2010) and Jang Singh (Cr.Misc. 3134 M of 2010). The petitioners apprehend arrest in a case, registered at the instance of complainant Ranjit Kaur alleging that the complainant had purchased a plot for a sum of Rs.4.18 lacs on 6.8.2008. The said plot was sold to Kaur Singh by producing some other lady, who impersonated the complainant. Subsequently, the said plot was sold to Sukhwinder Kaur. Leaned counsel for the petitioners contend that it is not a case of custodial interrogation. All the documents have already been taken into Cr.Misc. M 769 of 2010 2 possession and pursuant to the interim directions, the petitioners have already joined the investigation. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as Avtar Singh is concerned, as per the police record, the allegation against him is that he is the one, who had brought the lady, who impersonated complainant Ranjit Kaur. Though the name of person, from whom Sukhwinder Kaur purchased the property is also Avtar Singh but the present Avtar Singh is not the said Avtar Singh. So far as Manjit Singh is concerned, the allegation against him is that he along with his co-accused Jang Singh had attested the sale deed, by virtue of which the property was transferred from Ranjit Kaur to Kaur Singh. So far as Jang Singh is concerned, he is an ex-MC and is witness in both the sale deeds. In view of the above circumstances that the impersonator was brought by Avtar Singh and was identified by Manjit Singh and Jang Singh, at this stage, their connivance with the impersonator, cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel for Manjit Singh has contended that the lady, who executed the sale deed as Ranjit Kaur, is the paternal aunt of Avtar Singh and Manjit Singh had identified that lady. The said contention, at this stage is not sufficient enough to enable him to get the concession of pre-arrest bail. No extra- ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre- arrest bail to Avtar Singh, Manjit Singh and Jang Singh, who have connived and taken effective steps to transfer the property by impersonation. Petitions on their behalf are dismissed. So far as Harinder Dass is concerned, he is neither the beneficiary nor any connivance has been alleged against him. The only role attributed against him is that he had accompanied Avtar Singh and has conspired with him. It will be a moot point during trial whether he had actually connived with Avtar Singh as there is no evidence regarding his Cr.Misc. M 769 of 2010 3 conspiracy or he being a beneficiary in any manner. The petition of Harinder Dass (Cr.Misc. 843-M of 2010) is allowed, interim order dated 13.1.2010 is hereby confirmed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that he will appear before the investigating officer as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation at any stage. Nothing said in the order will prejudice the rights of the above said three petitioners,namely, Avtar Singh, Manjit Singh and Jang Singh at the time of adjudication of their applications for regular bail. February 3 ,2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE