In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-34658 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:13.1.2010 Bachittar Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Mohan Singh who has alleged that he was duped into purchasing the land by impersonating a false person as Balwinder Kaur, who was the owner of the plot in question. The petitioner, it is stated, is only a marginal witness to the sale deed dated 17.2.2009 executed by Balwinder Kaur in favour of Mohan Singh-complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not a beneficiary to the sale deed and he had attested the sale deed as a marginal witness on the asking of the complainant as he was on Cr. Misc. No.M-34658 of 2009 [2] friendly terms with him. It is also submitted that the petitioner would join investigation as and when called. In response, learned for the State and the complainant have submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail as the person who has impersonated as Balwinder Kaur is known to the petitioner. Besides, it is submitted that anticipatory bail applications of Naresh Chander, Deed Writer and Gurdev Singh have been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2009. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. There are 7 accused in the case. One lady, namely, Balwinder Kaur was introduced to the complainant-Mohan Singh. Sale deed No.11623 dated 3.12.1991 was shown to the complainant-Mohan Singh which was in favour of one Balwinder Kaur and related to land comprised in Khasra No.2259. However, in terms of the sale deed dated 17.2.2009 (Annexure-P.2) land comprised in Khasra No.2259 Min. is shown to have been transferred but according to the complainant the actual possession of Khasra No.2236 was shown to him which is in the name of one Satnam Kaur. Thereafter, according to the complainant it transpired that sale deed No.11623 dated 3.12.1991 was in favour of one Parkash Kaur and Khasra No. of the same was 649. In this manner, the name of Parkash Kaur was changed to Balwinder Kaur and Khasra No.649 was changed to 2259. It also transpired that the land comprised in Khasra No.2259 was sold by one Parkash Singh, who was owner of the land on 4.7.2004. The lady who impersonated as Balwinder Kaur has not been traced out and according to the prosecution, the petitioner is the person who can give her whereabouts. The other Cr. Misc. No.M-34658 of 2009 [3] marginal witness-Darshan Rai, Lambardar was arrested and has since been granted bail. The bail applications of other co-accused, namely, Naresh Chander Sharma and Gurdev Singh have been declined by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2009. It was observed that a fake sale deed has been prepared in the present case showing ownership of land purported to be of one Balwinder Kaur which was subsequently sold by her to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre- arrest bail is made out as the identity of Balwinder Kaur who was produced is yet to be ascertained and the petitioner is one of the persons, who would be in a position to give information in this regard. Therefore, his custodial interrogation would elicit the necessary information and material being brought out. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. January 13, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*