CRM No. M-30316 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-30316 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.10.2009 Trilochan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station City Sangrur, vide FIR No.258 dated 24th September, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is totally innocent and there is no evidence to link him with the commission of crime. According to the counsel, custodial interrogation of the petitioner shall serve no purpose and thus, the petitioner deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel submits that the occurrence took place on 30.7.1996 while the FIR was lodged on 24th September, 2009. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. CRM No. M-30316 of 2009 2 The allegations in the FIR are that he alongwith his co-accused produced one lady before the court, who impersonated as Gurnam Kaur. As a result, decree dated 30.7.1996 was passed by the court. The crime was committed by the petitioner alongwith co-accused in order to grab the land of their paternal aunt (Bua) Gurnam Kaur in village Tunga. In my considered view, in view of the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. He is alleged to have produced some lady in place of Gurnam Kaur before the court and on the basis of the same, decree dated 30.7.1996 was passed. I find no force in the contention of the counsel that delay in lodging the FIR needs to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pre-arrest bail. Needless to say that the complainant lodged the FIR when he came to know about the decree effecting his rights. Since the petitioner produced a lady to impersonate Gurnam Kaur who had already died on 27th April, 1992, a serious offence appears to have been committed. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to take the investigation to its logical end. Under the circumstances, there is no ground to grant concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The petition is devoid of merits. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 29, 2009 'rajpal'