Crl.M.No.M-9739 of 2009 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.17871 of 2009 and Crl.M.No.M-9739 of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.7.2009 Bhagwan Singh Sandhu ....Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.P.S.Hundal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.AG Punjab. Mr.Vikas Behl, Advocate for the complainant. * * * RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is only an attesting witness of the agreement to sell dated 1.8.2008 which is alleged to have been entered into by Major Singh Bawa as seller and the complainant as well as one Daljit Singh as buyer. He further contends that he never signed the said agreement to sell dated 1.8.2008 as an attesting witness and his signatures have been forged and the principal accused Major Singh who has been benefited in the whole transaction has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.M.No.M-7956 of 2009 vide order dated 28.5.2009. As against this, counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that there is an agreement to sell on record (Annexure A-1) dated 8.5.2008 vide which same land in question was agreed to be sold by Gurinderjeet Singh and Asha Jain Crl.M.No.M-9739 of 2009 -2 - to the petitioner (Bhagwan Singh Sandhu). He contends that if the petitioner was the buyer of the land in dispute vide agreement to sell dated 8.5.2008 then he could not be the attesting witness to the agreement to sell dated 1.8.2008. He further submits that petitioner and Major Singh Bawa (seller shown in the agreement to sell dated 4.8.2008) were working together in order to dupe persons like the complainant who had shelled out Rs.One Crore and twelve lacs in the transaction. Learned State counsel, on instructions received from ASI Phool Chand admitted that petitioner has already joined investigation but the amount which is alleged to have been paid by the complainant, has not been recovered. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no question of the petitioner receiving the amount, having been paid by the complainant, as he was only an attesting witness to the agreement to sell dated 1.8.2008 which too was forged. Since the main accused Major Singh has been enlarged on anticipatory bail, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present bail application is allowed. Order dated 24.4.2009 is made absolute. It is hereby directed that the petitioner shall keep on joining the investigation as and when called for. He shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 8.7.2009 JUDGE Meenu