IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-4009 of 2009 Date of decision: 9th March, 2009 Rajinder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for the State. Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common order, two petitions, viz. Criminal Misc. No. M- 4009 of 2009 preferred by Rajinder Singh and Criminal Misc. No. M-4193 of 2009 preferred by Parampreet Singh Grewal shall be decided together. Rajinder Singh and Mohan Singh are brothers. It is alleged that Mohan Singh has adopted Parampreet Singh Grewal, real son of Rajinder Singh. Mohan Singh has sold his share in land, vide registered sale deed to the complainant. It is stated that Mohan Singh, by an agreement dated 13th February, 1987, had put Parampreet Singh Grewal, at the behest of Rajinder Singh, in possession of the land. Purchasers of the land, complainants, having purchased the land, have been denied possession of the land by devising a method, whereby brother and nephew (adopted son) have been put in possession of the land. On the last date of hearing, Counsel for the State had submitted that though adoption deed has been recorded, agreement has Criminal Misc. No. M-4009 of 2009 not been handed over to the Investigating Officer. This Court on 12th February, 2009, had passed the order, and had granted interim bail to the petitioner on the ground that no document has been forged or fabricated and all documents shall be handed over to the investigating agency to facilitate completion of the investigation. The petitioner was supposed to extend cooperation and assistance to the Investigating Officer. The matter was adjourned on 27th February, 2009 and then on March 2, 2009. Today, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Mohan Singh has sent an affidavit that the agreement dated 13th February, 1987, signed by him, has been lost. Petitioner was beneficiary of the agreement. The agreement was supposed to be in his possession. In the present case, not only the necessary document, which was forged to harm the interest of the complainant, is being withheld, but investigating agency is being deprived of the documents by coning false reasons. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. No ground is made out to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, above said two petitions are dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 9, 2009 rps 2