CRM-M-27625-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27625-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:15.11.2011 Raj Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. P.S.Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.108 dated 23.08.2011, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib. As per the FIR, the land measuring 41 Kanals 11 Marlas was agreed to be sold by the complainant to Sohan Lal Arora on 03.04.2008 for a sum of `1.5 crore. A sum of `30 lacs was paid as earnest money and the date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 20.08.2008. The complainant has alleged that the vendee did not come to the Tehsil for the purpose of registration of sale deed as he was not having the balance sale consideration but in order to crate evidence of his presence in Tehsil he, in connivance with Advocate Harsawinder Singh Cheema and Harphool Singh Gill, Tehsildar forged an affidavit. In this case, the petitioner is the stamp vendor at District Courts, Fatehgarh Sahib. He had applied for bail before the leaned Court below which CRM-M-27625-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::: was dismissed on 02.09.2011 with the following observations: “5. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsel for accused-applicant and have also gone through the investigation record wherein reference to the Goshwara regarding sale of stamps by accused- applicant Raj Kumar for date 19.08.2008 and 20.08.2008 has been made and it has been found by the Inquiry Officer that whereas the Goshwara for 20.08.2008 reflects the sale of 242 stamps and remaining stamps to be 1792, as per the entries in the register, the actual sale of the stamp comes to 250 stamps on 20.08.2008. There are also duplicate entries of Sr. No.19052 and 19053 in the register pertaining to date 20.08.2008. The entry in the register in question qua the affidavit dated 20.08.2008 appears to be a suspicious and an insertion entry. 6. The register of the stamp vendor as well as the Goshwara calculated by the counsel for accused- applicant for 19.08.2008 and 20.08.2008 have been very keenly perused. There is variation in the goshwara showing the sale of 242 stamps of the value of Rs.5 each as compared to the actual sale of 250 stamps of Rs.5 lacs. In this backdrop, the allegations against the stamp vendor appears to be serious in nature and the custodial interrogation of the accused- applicant is required for eliciting the actual sequence of events. The accused-applicant is not found entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail and the bail application filed by accused-applicant is, therefore, dismissed. Police paper be returned with copy of this order. Bail application record be consigned to the Record Room.” CRM-M-27625-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] :::::::: Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the main accused Sohan Lal Arora has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2011 passed in CRM-M-28281-2011, whereas learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the said application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “Cr.P.C.”], whereas the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that there are allegations against the petitioner for indulging in similar type of cases about which a reference has been made of a complaint No.96-AT dated 30.08.2008, under Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 471, 191, 192, 193, 120-B IPC at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib which was filed by Kultar Singh son of Sital Singh, resident of village Pohlo Majra, Tehsil and Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that it is a matter of custodial interrogation because the petitioner is working as a stamp vendor in the Court Complex and there are allegations against him that he has been facilitating ante dated stamp papers to the litigants for the purpose of creating false evidence. Moreover, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that it is not a solitary incident. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. November 15, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE