Crl.M.No.M-27111 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-27111 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 15, 2010 Sunil Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.G.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.48346 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.48347 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-27111 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.287, dated 20.8.2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Complainant in this case is an NRI, who is stated to have been cheated by petitioner-accused in connivance with the co-accused. Complainant is owner of plot bearing Nos.92 and 93 situated in Palam Vihar Extension, Dharam Colony, Gurgaon, which was bought by her in the year 1995, vide registered sale deed. When she visited Gurgaon and visited the said property, she came to know that petitioner-accused was in Crl.M.No.M-27111 of 2010 (O&M) -2- possession of the same. As per allegations, her power of attorney was forged and on the basis of that, another power of attorney was given in favour of the petitioner by the co-accused Kanta Ahlawat. During investigation it was found that endorsement in the said power of attorney of Jharkhand is a forged one and the power of attorney pertained to the property, i.e., plot No.88, situated at Palam Vihar Gurgaon. However word `KH' has been added later on. There is no agreement of sale or sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. There is no mention of any consideration even in the alleged power of attorney executed in his favour by co-accused Kanta Ahlawat. Hence, there are serious allegations against the petitioner- accused. His custodial interrogation is necessary. It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Sunil Kumar for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 15.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge