Criminal Misc. No.M-31017 of 2009 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-31017 of 2009 Date of decision : 17.11.2009 Dharampal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. M.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The land under reference was owned by Pritpal Singh. One Bachittar Singh, a non-petitioner, used to share the booze in the company of Prit Pal Singh aforementioned. Bachittar Singh aforementioned incited Pritpal Singh to execute a will in favour of his wife-Baljit Kaur and divest inheritance to his sons from all the property owned by him. On that pretext, Bachittar Singh brought Pritpal Singh to the Civil Courts and obtained a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner before this Court. The power of attorney was obtained infact; whereas the impression given to Pritpal Singh that the documentation purported to be a will in favour of his wife Mst. Baljit Kaur. The purpose of Bachittar Singh was to usurp the property of Pritpal Singh in collusion with the petitioner. On that basis of that power of attorney, the petitioner herein executed three sale deeds. Two sale deeds in respect of 4 kanals 14 marlas each in favour of Bachittar Singh aforementioned and one Chatro for consideration which is far less than the market value that the property could fetch. The 3rd sale deed was also for a price which is far lesser than the market price it could Criminal Misc. No.M-31017 of 2009 -2- *** fetch. The sale deeds were effected almost immediately after the execution of the power of attorney. The petitioner/general power of attorney is not at all related to Pritpal Singh. There is understandable reason why he would have opted to execute a power of attorney in favour of a non-relation. The land was sold at a price which is far lessor than the price it could fetch in the open market. All these factors prima facie lend credence to presumption that it was a mockery affair. In the light of the above noted facts, I do not find it to be a fit case where this Court should exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. Nothing observed in the course of this order shall be taken into an expression of opinion on the merits of this case. November 17, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE