Crl. Misc. No. M- 24723 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 24723 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 14, 2010 Balbir Kaur ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. D.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 92 dated 7.7.2010, under Sections 420,465,467,468,471,120-B of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar, Muktsar. The case of the complainant as per the FIR is that the petitioner in connivance with her other co-accused had committed the alleged offence. Om Parkash acting as Special Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioner and another sold land measuring 6 Marlas 6 Sarsai to Usha Rani wife of the complainant, and Anita Gupta wife of Darshan Lal and Kavita Rani wife of Surinder Kumar vide sale deed dated 9.6.2009 for a sum of Rs. 6,75,000/-. Om Parkash had also executed sale deeds on behalf of the other accused. Om Parkash had received the amount in question on behalf of the petitioner and the other co-accused. The land in question alleged to have been sold by Crl. Misc. No. M- 24723 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Om Parkash was in fact under road and street. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was an old lady and was not required for custodial interrogation. The husband of the petitioner has since been arrested and has been released on regular bail. Learned State counsel, who is assisted by ASI Chander Mohan, has submitted that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. The amount in question has yet not been recovered. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Om Parkash acting a Special Power of Attorney of the petitioner had executed the sale deed in question. The land, however, is under road and street. Petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Dismissed. (SABINA) September 14, 2010 JUDGE Anand