Criminal Misc. No. M-21485 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-21485 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.9.2009 Harpreet Singh and another .. Petitioners v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. S. Panag and Mr. R. K. Dadwal, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. A. S. Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The FIR was registered with the allegation that Kulbir Singh had sold the property, which was beyond his share in a joint khata. He had also given power of attorney to various persons who, as per allegations in the FIR, executed sale deeds regarding the land owned by deceased-Kulbir Singh after his death. Against petitioner No. 1, the allegation is that he being the son of Kulbir Singh had not only signed the sale deeds in which his father had sold excess share of land but also witnessed the sale deeds registered after the death of his father by the attorney given by his father. The learned court below, while rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for bail, had noticed the fact that petitioner No. 1 was a witness to the sale deed executed by petitioner No. 2, which was registered after the death of his father. This fact was wrongly noticed in the order of the court below is not disputed by learned counsel for the State. He submitted that after the father of petitioner No. 1 had sold his share in the joint khata, only 15 square yards of land was left out in March, 1998. However, still thereafter two sale deeds registered on 7.1.2000, in which petitioner No. 1 was one of the witness. The vendor in the aforesaid sale deeds was deceased-Kulbir Singh, i.e., father of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners are not beneficiary in the aforesaid two sale deeds. It is also a fact that other co-accused in the FIR, against whom similar allegations have been made, have already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Considering the aforesaid facts, however, without opining on the Criminal Misc. No. M-21485 of 2009 [2] merits of the controversy, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Accordingly, it is directed that in case of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.9.2009 mk