Crl.Misc. No.M-20260 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: September 15, 2011. (1) Crl.Misc. No.M-20260 of 2011. Nishan Singh. .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. .. Respondent * * * (2) Crl.Misc. No.M-21067 of 2011. Sandeep Kumar. .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Vishal Deep, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-20260-2011. Mr.D.S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-21067-2011. Mr.Arshvinder Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr.Mayank Mathur, Advocate, for the complainant. * * * ...1 Crl.Misc. No.M-20260 of 2011 M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL) This order will dispose of the above noted two petitions i.e., Crl.Misc.No.M-20260-2011, filed by Nishan Singh and Crl.Misc.No.M-21067-2011, filed by Saneep Kumar, for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered at the instance of Subegh Singh alleging that his son Harwinder Singh, had prepared a fake general power of attorney by producing Gurnam Singh before the Sub Registrar and on the basis of said power of attorney mortgaged the property of the complainant measuring 30 kanals with M/s Novelty Finance Company Limited. The petitioner Nishan Singh, in the capacity, as Lamberdar claims that he, in the ordinary course had identified the executant on the basis of the voter card shown to him at the instance of witness No.2 who happens to be Sandeep Kumar, petitioner. Sandeep Kumar petitioner, claims that he is only a second witness having identified the impersonator. After considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that petitioner No.1, who is a Lamberdar has casually exercised his authority to identify the impersonator before the Sub Registrar resulting in wrongful loss caused to the complainant as the property of the complainant has been mortgaged on the basis of a fake power of attorney. There may be a dispute between father and son but on account of dereliction of duty by petitioner No.1 and active role played by Sandeep Kumar, ...2 Crl.Misc. No.M-20260 of 2011 there does not exist any extra ordinary exceptional circumstance, to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that pursuant to the interim orders, the petitioner have joined investigation and that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. Mere joining of investigation will not confer ipso facto a right upon the petitioners to seek the concession of pre-arrest bail. Both the petitions are dismissed. Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioners to seek the concession of regular bail. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 15, 2011. rka ...3