IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) Nos. 626, 627 and 628 of 2008. Date of decision: July 23, 2008. 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 626 of 2008. Smt. Geetanjali …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 627 of 2008. Smt. Meenakshi Behl …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 628 of 2008. Hitesh Kumari …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. M.S.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This order shall dispose of three bail petitions, being Cr.M.P(M) Nos. 626, 627 and 628 of 2008, which have arisen out of FIR No. 101, registered on 21.6.2008 at Police Station, Baijnath, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC. The status report has been filed. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 2. Heard and perused the record. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Vidayawati filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for directions to S.H.O., Police Station, Baijnath to register the case. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath on 20.6.2008 directed that the application be sent to Police Station, Baijnath for investigation and accordingly the case was registered at Police Station, Baijnath. The case of the complainant is that she had appointed Hitesh Kumari Bisht, as her general power of attorney holder to look after and manage her land at Mohal Gankhetar, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra. The said general power of attorney was revoked by the complainant on 6.9.2007, but despite that Hitesh Bisht on 27.3.2008 sold the property of Vidyawati to Geetanjali and Meenakshi Behl vide two sale deeds dated 27.3.2008. Hitesh Bisht is the daughter-in-law of complainant Vidyawati and Geetangali and Meenakshi are the daughters of Hitesh Bisht. 3. It has been alleged that despite notice of revocation of general power of attorney, Hitesh Bisht has used said general power of attorney illegally, which was given by complainant in favour of Hitesh Bisht. In this way, all the accused-petitioners have committed offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is admitted case of the prosecution that petitioner Hitesh Bisht was holding general power of attorney of complainant for managing her property at Baijnath. The petitioner Hitesh Bisht acted bonafide without notice of alleged revocation of general power of attorney on 6.9.2007 by the complainant. It has also been submitted that no notice of revocation …3… of general power of attorney was given by the complainant to Hitesh Bisht nor such notice was published in any newspaper for general information. The petitioner Hitesh Bisht has acted bonafide under the general power of attorney which was given to her by the complainant. The case was registered on 21.6.2008 and till now notice of revocation of general power of attorney to petitioner Hitesh Bisht has not been recovered by the Investigating Agency. There is nothing on record to show that notice of revocation of general power of attorney was published by complainant in some newspaper for information to general public. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. He has submitted that serious offence has been committed by the petitioners in connivance with each other and they have duped the complainant and have misused the general power of attorney which was given by her to petitioner Hitesh Bisht. The petitioners are not entitled to bail. 4. The case against the petitioners is based upon documents. There is no allegation that petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, all the applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in FIR No. 101, registered on 21.6.2008 at Police Station, Baijnath, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, they shall be released on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions:- 1. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation and shall also join investigation as and when called upon to do by the Investigating Officer …4… by a written Hukamnama. It is further directed that the Investigating Officer shall ensure that the petitioners being ladies shall be interrogated strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; 2. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing any facts to the Investigating team or Court. 3. The petitioners shall not attempt to hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever or tamper with the prosecution evidence; and 4. The petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. 5. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. 6. Dasti copy on usual terms. July 23, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.