Crl.Misc. No.M-15426 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: August 09, 2011. Crl.Misc. No.M-15426 of 2011 (O&M). Vasdev Singh etc. .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Mohd. Yusuf, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Kiratpal Singh Sidhu, DAG., Punjab. Mr.Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. * * * M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Balwinder Singh alleging that the share of his mother Parkash Kaur in Plot measuring 250 square yards co-owned with her brother Harbhajan Singh and his maternal aunt Gurdeep Kaur has been transferred on the basis of power of attorney of Parkash Kaur in favour of Harbhajan Singh executed on 19.01.2007 whereas Parkash Kaur had already died in the year . . . 1 Crl.Misc. No.M-15426 of 2011 (O&M) 1999. The petitioners had identified Rajinder Kaur as Parkash Kaur by appearing before the Sub Registrar. Petitioner No.2 is Numberdar and he had specifically mentioned in the endorsement at the back of power of attorney that he knew Parkash Kaur. Petitioner No.1 has also attested the power of attorney identifying Parkash Kaur as second witness. The complainant claims that he has been deprived of his right to inherit the property of his mother on account of fake power of attorney which was used to alienate the property. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. Petitioner No.2 has misused his position as Numberdar and joined Vasudev Singh petitioner No.1 as second witness to assist the fabrication of false power of attorney of Parkash Kaur which resulted in serious consequences of transfer of property of Parkash Kaur after her death. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioner, had in routine, identified the executor under bona fide belief that she was the daughter of Harbhajan Singh to whom the petitioners knew earlier. I have considered the said contention and do not find any force in the same. In view of the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioners, I do not find any ground to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Dismissed. However, this order will not, in any . . . 2 Crl.Misc. No.M-15426 of 2011 (O&M) manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioners to seek the concession of regular bail by surrendering before the trial Court. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 09, 2011. rka . . . 3