Crl. Misc. No. M-30556 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-30556 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 25, 2011 Amarjit Singh and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. B. S. Sra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Amarjit Singh Nambardar and Gursewak Singh have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.25 dated 03.03.2011, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 474 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Zira, District Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, forged agreement for sale of land of complainant Paramjit Singh was prepared in favour of Surinder Crl. Misc. No. M-30556 of 2011 2 Singh in connivance with the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners have no concern with the preparation of the impugned agreement. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from DSP Balwinder Singh and ASI Sukhwinder Singh, contended that according to investigation, Surinder Singh, in whose favour the impugned agreement was prepared, has been duped by Amarjit Singh – petitioner no.1 by preparing the said agreement and Surinder Singh paid Rs.36,50,000/- to petitioner no.1 and according to investigation, Surinder Singh had not only been found to be innocent, but also had been found to be victim of fraud and forgery of petitioner no.1 in connivance with petitioner no.2 and two other co-accused i.e. witnesses of the agreement. It was also contended by learned State counsel that petitioner no.2 was also present at the time of forgery of impugned agreement. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. In so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, according to investigation, he is the main culprit having received Rs.36,50,000/- from Surinder Singh pursuant to the impugned agreement. Consequently, petitioner no.1 does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. However, in so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, no active role has been attributed to him in the entire occurrence and it has only been alleged that fraud and forgery was committed in connivance with petitioner no.2. Crl. Misc. No. M-30556 of 2011 3 In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to petitioner no.2, but not to petitioner no.1. Accordingly, the instant petition qua petitioner no.1 is dismissed, whereas the instant petition qua petitioner no.2 is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioner no.2 shall be released on bail, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions specified in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He shall join investigation as and when required by the police. Presently, petitioner no.2 is directed to join investigation on 05.12.2011 at 10:00 A.M. and continue to do so as and when required by the police. Pursuant to order dated 14.11.2011, State counsel has today filed in Court affidavit of Jawahar Lal – Senior Assistant of the office of Advocate General, Punjab. The said affidavit is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. It has been stated in the said affidavit that inadvertently, communication of notice of the instant petition to police was sent for a wrong date of hearing i.e. for 31.12.2011 instead of 31.10.2011. In view thereof, it is apparent that police officials were not at fault in not coming to the Court to assist the State counsel on 31.10.2011. Accordingly, DSP Balwinder Singh and ASI Sukhwinder Singh are discharged. November 25, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE