CRM No.M-29119 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 1.10.2010 Narinder Pal Singh and Gurdev Singh ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioners Narinder Pal Singh and Gurdev Singh, have directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused, vide FIR No.97 dated 1.9.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Bhadaur, Distt.Barnala, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution case is that Bagga Singh son of Balour Singh was the owner of the property in question. He had died on 18.4.2010. According to the prosecution that although Bagga Singh died on 18.4.2010, but all the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy and forged the Will dated 22.4.2010 after his death by impersonation and secured a mutation, on the basis of aforesaid forged Will, ignoring the legitimate claim of complainant Mail Kaur, daughter of the deceased. On the basis of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the relevant record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition. CRM No.M-29119 of 2010 (O&M) 2 4. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioners are not the beneficiary of the outcome of the forged Will, so, they are entitled to concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 5. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against all the accused, including the petitioners, that they hatched a criminal conspiracy and although Bagga Singh died on 18.4.2010 in the hospital, but by impersonation, all the accused fabricated his date of birth and forged the Will on 22.4.2010, in order to grab the legitimate share of the complainant. The Additional Sessions Judge declined the prayer for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, vide order dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure P4), the operative part of which is as under:- “As per the copy of death certificate placed on the file and the certificate issued by the Doctor, Bagga Singh died on 18.4.10 and it is the specific plea of the complainant that alleged will dated 22.4.10 allegedly executed by Bagga Singh is forged, fabricated document and is the result of impersonation. Keeping in view all these facts, the custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant Balbir Kaur, Gurdev Singh and Narinder Pal Singh is required. The grant of pre-arrest bail at this stage would amount to interference with the investigation of the case. Therefore, their pre-arrest bail application deserves no consideration and is dismissed.” 6. To me, the Additional Sessions Judge has recorded the valid reasons in this regard and since the police has to unearth the scam of forging the Will, so, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is essential in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed. 1.10.2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE