Crl. Misc. No.M-3359 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-3359 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 28, 2010 Gaurav Malhotra …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana Mr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Sunil Sood alleging that he is owner in possession of land measuring 7 kanals 3 marlas which has been sold by the petitioner by impersonation and without any authority of the complainant. Crl. Misc. No.M-3359 of 2010 [2] The petitioner had purchased the said property by different sale deeds of the year 1991. As the compliant was busy in his business out of country and kept the original sale deeds with his brother Anil Kumar Sood as trust, but Anil Kumar Sood had dishonestly misappropriated the sale deeds and illegally sold the property. The complainant made enquires from the record in May 2008 in the office of Sub Registrar, Gurgaon and learnt that the properties have been sold by three sale deeds of 2001. The said sale deeds had been executed by the petitioner by forging his signatures executing the sale deeds in favour of Dhingra Motors through Satish Dhingra, Giriraj Dhingra, Ashok Dhingra, Subhash Dhingra and Gopi Chand Dhingra. The sale consideration had been received by Gaurav Malhotra and shared with the conspirators. The allegations have also been levelled against the Sub- Registrar, Gurgaon for having connived with the brother of the complainant and the petitioner. The complainant has also challenged the validity of the three sale deed by filing a civil suit in the year 2008 which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The plea of the defendants in that suit is that complainant had executed a Special Power of Attorney dated March 23, 2001 and affidavit of the same date in the office of Indian High Commission, United Kingdom, by paying appropriate fee and ratified the three sale deeds qua the properties which are the subject matter of the civil suit. The execution of Special Power of Attorney and affidavit dated March 23, 2001 executed by the complainant in favour of brother Anil Kumar Sood is a disputed fact in issue in the civil suit. The civil rights of the parties are subject matter of the civil suit. Whether the petitioner has Crl. Misc. No.M-3359 of 2010 [3] impersonated the complainant while executing the sale deeds, is also the subject matter of the civil litigation. The petitioner has already joined investigation. It does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation. Counsel for complainant- Anil Kumar Sood has vehemently opposed the petition for bail contending that only custodial interrogation can permit the investigating agency to arrive at a fair conclusion as to how the petitioner had purchased the rights of the complainant. I do not agree with the counsel for the complainant that while the civil litigation regarding the sale transactions is pending, the petitioner should be sent behind bars or be sent for custodial interrogation to elucidate truth. The chances of petitioner absconding or fleeing from the process of law are remote especially when he has joined investigation. Petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions that he will join investigation as and when required by the police and that he will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner. This order will remain operative till the presentation of the challan. In case of presentation of challan, the petitioner would be required to appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction and furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the said Court. September 28, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE