CRM No. M 10734 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 09.07.2010 1. CRM No. M 10734 of 2010 Rakesh Kumar ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent1. 2. CRM No. M 12572 of 2010 Sanjay ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent 3. CRM No. M 9373 of 2010 Rajender Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent 4. CRM No. M 16277 of 2010 Dhanvir alias Vicky ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent 5. CRM No. M 16280 of 2010 Omvir ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. P N Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner (CRM Nos. M 10734 and M 12572 of 2010) Mr. Jagmohan Ghuman, Advocate CRM No. M 10734 of 2010 2 for the petitioner (CRM No. M 9373 of 2010) Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (CRM Nos. M 16277 and 16280 of 2010) Ms Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent - State Mr. G S Virk, Advocate for the complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Aforesaid petitions shall be disposed of by this common order as all the petitions arise out of the same FIR bearing No. 25 dated 11.02.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Farrukh Nagar, District Gurgaon. While praying for grant of anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a civil suit titled Jitender Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar and others has already been filed on 10.09.2009 by the complainant Jitender Kumar for declaration that the document including the General Power of Attorney are not genuine. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on document (P-2) signed by 12 members of the Panchayat which is signed by the complainant showing that he owes Rs.35 lacs to petitioner-Rakesh Kumar and that the FIR was lodged on 11.02.2010 only to escape the liability. Reliance was also placed on the judgements rendered in the cases of Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, reported as 2009(1) CRM No. M 10734 of 2010 3 RCR (Criminal) 473 and Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, reported as 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 540 to substantiate his arguments that “there is no reason to deny anticipatory bail merely because the allegation in this case pertains to cheating or forgery of a valuable security.” Learned counsel for the parties were heard. The allegations in the FIR against the petitioner are serious. As per the allegations in the FIR, the GPA in favour of Rakesh Kumar was witnessed by Rajender and Sandeep. The GPA is fictitious and forged one and on the basis of the same, sale deed was registered in the name of Renu wife of Sanjay and Sushila wife of Omvir. The aforesaid sale deed was further witnessed by Rajbir and Naresh. It was further contended that not only the General Power of Attorney and the sale deed is forged but even the receipts and other documents relating to the entire transaction have been forged. Omvir and Vicky took the complainant to Alwar where the complainant's thumb impression was taken after administering him some intoxicating substance, whereas, he never puts his thumb impression as he is educated, has passed matriculation and always signed in English. Thus, the land and shops of the complainant have been sold by Rakesh Kumar in connivance with other co-accused to his own family members, whereas, the complainant had never executed any such power of attorney authorising the petitioner to sell his land and shops. The bail of co-accused-Sombir was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2010 passed in CRM M 6352 of 2010. It is not a simple case of evidence on the basis of documents alone. Custodial interrogation may be required. The grant of anticipatory CRM No. M 10734 of 2010 4 bail may scuttle the investigation. Concession of anticipatory bail, therefore, cannot be granted in the facts of the present case. Dismissed. Copy of the order be also placed on the each of the connected files. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 09.07.2010 mohan