Criminal Misc. No. M-28834 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-28834 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.10.2009 Gurdeep Kumar .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. K. Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner. ... .. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No. 94 dated 21.8.2009, registered under Section 420, 34 IPC, at Police Station, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The petitioner claimed that he was merely a power of attorney holder of the owner of the land, namely, Kuldip Singh. He is not the beneficiary and considering the fact that Kuldip Singh has been granted pre-arrest bail, the petitioner also deserves the same concession. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record as well as the order dated 25.9.2009, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M- 25332 of 2009 –Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab. The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR, which was registered on 21.8.2009. The petitioner immediately after the registration of the FIR, moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned court below, which was dismissed on 5.9.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner kept quiet till such time the present application for anticipatory bail has been filed in this Court on 13.10.2009. Kuldip Singh, the owner of the property, whose anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the learned court below on 4.9.2009, immediately approached this Court on 9.9.2009 and his contention was accepted by the court considering his claim that he being a drunkard person, the complainant party got blank papers signed from him. Kuldip Singh had filed a suit challenging the sale deed in which the present petitioner is also one of the defendants along with the beneficiaries in the sale deed. As had come on record while deciding the bail Criminal Misc. No. M-28834 of 2009 [2] application of Kuldip Singh, the defendants had not filed reply in the suit despite service. The sequence of events certainly raises suspicion, namely, the alleged agreement to sell was executed by Kuldip Singh on 31.10.2007; on 19.11.2007, a general power of attorney was executed by Kuldip Singh in favour of the petitioner, who, in turn, got the sale deed executed in favour of the vendee on 21.11.2007; on 22.11.2007 an exchange deed was also executed mentioning different khasra numbers as compared to those which were mentioned in the sale deed. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the role of the petitioner deserves to be investigated in detail for which his custody would be required. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 21.10.2009 mk