Crl.M.No. M-20951/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No. M-20951/2010 Date of decision: 16.9.2010. Rohtash ....................Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Vikram Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mahabir Singh Sindhu,Addl.AG Haryana Mr.Rajesh Lamba,Advocate for the complainant. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Prayer under Section 438 Cr.PC is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.81dated 18.2.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC, PS Nuh,Distt.Mewat. The allegations levelled by complainant Jyoti Lal in the FIR are that he wanted to transfer his property in the name of his wife by way of a Will. Since the complainant is an illiterate person so he approached petitioner-Rohtash, being the Lambardar of his Village to help him get the said Will executed in favour of his wife. It is further alleged that accused-petitioner took complainant Jyoti Lal on 13.1.2010 to the Tehsil Office at Nuh, where petitioner had also called Iqbal Singh, Daya Singh and 2-3 other persons. At Tehsil Office, the Crl.M.No. M-20951/2010 2 petitioner is alleged to have made complainant thumb mark the register of Stamp Vendor, saying that the same was required for execution of the Will in favour of his wife. On the same day i.e. 13.1.2010, the petitioner besides getting prepared/registered one Will in favour of wife of the complainant is also alleged to have got prepared/executed one forged agreement to sell in respect of the same property measuring 14 kanals 10 marlas of the complainant-Jyoti Lal, in favour of his real brother Digamber and one Daya Parkash. As per said agreement to sell, entered at Sr.No.879 of Ganesh Dass Arora, Deed Writer, the total sale consideration of Rs.29 lacs was paid to complainant in the Tehsil Office and the complainant is also alleged to have given a receipt in token of having allegedly received the said amount. Soon thereafter, co-accused Daya Parkash on 18.1.2010 filed a suit for specific performance against the complainant regarding the said forged agreement to sell dated 13.1.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a Lambardar of the Village was only an attesting witness to the alleged forged agreement to sell dated 13.1.2010 and identity of the executants of the agreement to sell is not disputed. Therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner is not the beneficiary in the alleged transaction in any manner. Learned State counsel submits that one of the purchasers Crl.M.No. M-20951/2010 3 namely Digamber is the real brother of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is an attesting witness to the registered Will executed by the complainant in favour of his wife and also the attesting witness to the agreement to sell dated 13.1.2010 allegedly executed by the complainant in favour of the purchasers qua the same property. Therefore, it is contended that fraud committed by the petitioner, who is Lambardar of the village is writ large as he has cheated a poor and illiterate farmer of his land. Counsel for the parties heard. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence it is clear that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation of the case. No case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed. 16.9.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge