Criminal Misc.-M No. 33622 of 2011 [1] IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 33622 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.11.2011 Kiran Bala .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P. K. S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. BBS Teji, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 123 dated 7.10.2011, registered under Sections 420/467/468/120-B IPC, Police Station, Canal Colony, Bhatinda. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband, namely, Vinay Pal @ Vinay Chand was co-sharer in a land with other family members. The allegations in the FIR are that he had sold more than his share in the land. A portion of land was gifted by him to the petitioner for which a power of attorney was got executed in his favour again from the petitioner. Thereafter, part of the land was sold. In fact, the petitioner had nothing to do with sale of share more than what was owned by Vinay Pal in the joint khewat. She has merely been gifted certain portion of land by her husband for which she had executed a power of attorney in his favour to deal with the same. Vinay Pal was arrested and has already been released on regular bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that considering the fact that in the transaction, the petitioner was also involved as part of the land was gifted to her, part of which was further sold by Vinay Pal on the basis of power of attorney executed by the petitioner in his favour. It is a case of conspiracy and the petitioner does not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Criminal Misc.-M No. 33622 of 2011 [2] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that Vinay Pal was co-sharer in the joint khewat; he allegedly sold land more than his share in the khewat; part of the land was gifted to his wife; the petitioner had merely executed a power of attorney in favour of her husband to deal with a portion of land gifted by her husband and further that Vinay Pal has already been released on regular bail, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. He is directed to appear before Investigating Officer on 3.12.2011 at 10.00 AM for joining investigation. In case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. She 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 23.11.2011 mk