Crl. Misc. No.M-22349 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: August 25, 2011 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-22349 of 2011 Gurbinder Singh @ Gurvinder Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-22625 of 2011 Jagpreet Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent 3. Crl. Misc. No. M-22966 of 2011 Rasheed Ahmed @ Lali …..Petitioner Vs. Crl. Misc. No.M-22349 of 2011 [2] State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-22349 of 2011. Mr.M.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-22625 of 2011. Mr.Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc.No. M-22966 of 2011. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Mohd Yousuf, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of three petitions bearing Crl. Misc. Nos.M-22349, M-22625 and M-22966 of 2011, for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.120 dated July 4, 2011 under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala. The petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered on the basis of the complaint filed by Jagmail Singh and Sukhdev Singh alleging that they had entered into an agreement of sale with Mohinder Singh to purchase 24 bighas 2 biswas of land at the rate of ` 25 lacs per acre. Lali @ Kala had informed about the said property as he had been working with property dealer Jagsir Singh. The deal was struck at the house of Naranjan Singh in Crl. Misc. No.M-22349 of 2011 [3] presence of his family members. A sum of ` 25 lacs was paid on March 28, 2011 as earnest money to Mohinder Singh in presence of witnesses and an agreement was reduced into writing which was attested by Notary public. The complainants visited the property on March 28, 2011 where they were informed that they had been cheated as Chamkaur Singh son of Sh.Mohinder Singh had impersonated as Mohinder Singh and put his signatures on the agreement. The original owner Mohinder Singh and his son Chamkaur Singh @ Pali, Balwinder Singh and others had constituted a gang. When the petitioners had gone to the house of Mohinder Singh who had allegedly signed the agreement, his house was found locked. Counsel for the petitioners have contended that the petitioners have falsely implicated in the case, and that there is no cogent evidence collected by the police regarding the involvement of the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that they have not received any money in the transaction. Offence, if any, has been committed by Chamkaur Singh who had impersonated as Mohinder Singh. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and State counsel and gone through the investigation file. The investigation is at initial stage but on the basis of the material gathered by the investigating agency, it is apparent that Chamkaur Singh had impersonated as Mohinder Singh and a sum of ` 25 lacs had been transferred by the complainant and the money stands distributed amongst all the conspirators. Jagmail Singh, complainant has also registered another FIR against the present conspirators. So far as petitioner Rasheed Ahmed is concerned, he appears to have connived with Crl. Misc. No.M-22349 of 2011 [4] Balwinder Singh son of Naranjan Singh and Chamkaur Singh son of Mohinder Singh being known to the petitioner Rasheed Ahmed . He had introduced Gurbinder Singh, Bhinder Singh, Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi to the complainant. So far as petitioner Gurbinder Singh is concerned, he is a property dealer though his name does not find mention in the FIR but Rasheed Ahmed by his affidavit deposed before the Executive Magistrate that the petitioner had got prepared a fake driving licence of Chamkaur Singh. He had also received share to the extent of ` 10.58 lacs. Petitioner Gurbinder Singh alongwith Rasheed Ahmed, Bhinder Singh, Chamkaur Singh, Jagsir Singh and Jassi on March 8, 2011 in the cars of Gurbinder Singh and Jagsir Singh had carried fake licence in the name of Mohinder Singh, original owner with photograph of Chamkaur Singh had gone to purchase the stamp papers and Chamkaur Singh had affixed his thumb impression in place of Mohinder Singh in presence of witnesses. A sum of ` 3.27 lacs had been received by Rasheed Ahmed and Gurbinder Singh had received ` 23.50 lacs, out of which ` 9 lacs has been paid to Chamkaur Singh. The remaining amount had been disbursed amongst Gurbinder Singh, Bhinder Singh, Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi, Jassi and one Giani. Counsel for the petitioner-Gurbinder Singh has submitted that the affidavit of co-accused Rasheed Ahmed will not be admissible in evidence. But perusal of the affidavit of Rasheed Ahmed indicates that Gurbinder Singh seems to have taken ` 1.70 lacs from him again on credit Crl. Misc. No.M-22349 of 2011 [5] as temporary loan and another sum of ` 50,000/- has been taken by Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi after a dispute arose amongst all the accused persons. So far as petitioner Jagpreet is concerned, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is neither named in the affidavit nor there is any evidence collected against him. A close scrutiny of the police file indicates that Jagpreet Singh is the son of Kuldeep Singh. He has been wrongly named as Jaspreet Singh in the FIR. He is mentioned as Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi in the affidavit of Rasheed Ahmed. He is also one of the beneficiaries of the illgotenment. Counsel for the Jagpreet Singh has contended that there is no cogent evidence that he ever received any money. Name of Jagpreet Singh @ Jagsir Singh @ Jaggi son of Kuldip Singh finds mentioned in the affidavits of Rasheed Ahmed, Chamkaur Singh and Balwinder Singh who have shared money. It will be premature at this stage to discard the affidavits of Rasheed Ahmed, Balwinder Singh and Chamkaur Singh solely on the ground that they are inadmissible. It is premature at this stage to examine the relevancy or admissibility of documents or statements which are being collected by the investigating agency. No extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. All the three petitions are dismissed. Similar petitions of the petitioners in FIR No.119 dated August 4, 2011 have also been dismissed as in the said FIR which has been lodged by Jagmail Singh and Amar Singh, the petitioners have played active role in Crl. Misc. No.M-22349 of 2011 [6] duping Jagmail Singh and Amar Singh where Balwinder Singh impersonated as Naranjan Singh in connivance and conspiracy with the petitioners. August 25, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE