IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-25047 of 2009 Date of decision : 13.10.2009 Iqbal Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 IPC at Police Station Sadar Ropar, District Ropar vide FIR No. 97 dated 22.07.2009. At the time of notice of motion it was stated before this court that agreement in question could have been enforced by a suit for specific performance and thus, dispute was of civil nature. It was also submitted that petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lacs subsequent thereto, which were withdrawn by Amrik Singh, complainant. The petitioner was thus, asked to join the investigation and ad-interim pre-arrest bail was granted to him. Learned counsel for the State (on instructions from SI Shahabad Singh, who is present in court) has today apprised the court that the petitioner infact forged the agreement to sell. Though, he appeared before the investigating officer but refused to hand-over the original copy of the forged agreement. Learned counsel has further apprised the court that Crl. Misc No. M-25047 of 2009 -2- Rs. 5 lacs which is stated to have been deposited by the petitioner before the bank were infact withdrawn by himself by taking another person alongwith him, who impersonated as Amrik Singh, complainant. According to the State counsel, a wrong statement was made before this court on 08.09.2009. Learned counsel has submitted that investigating agency has found that the said cheque for Rs. 5 lacs was not account payee cheque and it is for this reason that the petitioner was able to manipulate & withdraw the same by introducing some other person in place of the complainant, Amrik Singh. I have heard rival contentions raised by counsel for the parties. The allegation in the FIR of forgery of agreement to sell is serious in nature. This apart, the statement of the investigating officer that Rs. 5 lacs which are stated to have been deposited by the petitioners, having been withdrawn by the petitioner himself shows that the petitioner has been trying to hoodwink the investigating agency as well as this court. Under the circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner has become necessary to take the investigating to its logical end. The petitioner has disentitled himself to the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. 13.10.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE