Crl. Misc. No. M-30133 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-30133 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 14, 2011 Anil Kumar and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Accused Anil Kumar and Dinesh Bhadhana have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.639 dated 20.11.2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, District Faridabad. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioners forged an agreement on behalf of the complainant, although the complainant had Crl. Misc. No. M-30133 of 2011 2 signed blank papers as security for loan of Rs.10,00,000/- taken from petitioner no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners very vehemently contended that the instant FIR is counter blast to FIR already lodged on 13.03.2010 by petitioner no.1 against the complainant party and the instant FIR was lodged eight months thereafter and almost one year after the agreement. It was also contended that according to FSL Report (Annexure P-2), signatures of the complainant as executant and his wife as witness of the agreement have been found to be their signatures. It was also pointed out that initially, the executant vendor and his wife denied their signatures on the impugned agreement, but now after FSL Report, they have come out with a new version that they had signed blank papers as security. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that cancellation report has been prepared in FIR lodged by petitioner no.1 as the same was found to be false and Calandra under Section 182 IPC is also to be presented against petitioner no.1 for the same. Counsel for the petitioners contended that re-investigation has been ordered in the said FIR. However, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Anoop Singh, stated that no re-investigation is being conducted in the said FIR. Learned State counsel also pointed out that the agreement has been opined to be forged one by FSL for detailed reasons and signatures have not been found to be of the executant on the agreement. Crl. Misc. No. M-30133 of 2011 3 I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is significant to notice that according to the agreement, which is dated 21.12.2009, earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- had been paid to the vendor executant, but it has turned out that in fact, the amount was paid vide bank draft dated 23.12.2009 depicting that the earnest money recited to be paid in the agreement had not been paid at the time of alleged execution of the agreement. In addition to the aforesaid, interim order was issued in favour of the petitioners on the submission that the instant FIR is counter blast to FIR already lodged by petitioner no.1, but counsel for the petitioners very carefully concealed from this Court that cancellation report had been prepared in that case and even petitioner's petition filed in this Court for re- investigation stood already rejected by this Court long back. In addition to it, the Court was also misled at the time of motion hearing by submitting that according to the FSL Report, signatures of vendor executant and his wife have been found to tally, whereas in fact, according to the FSL Report (Annexure P-2), it was not possible to fix authorship of questioned signatures of the executant, whereas there is opinion that possibility of signatures of vendor's wife having been written by her could not be ruled out, but there is no positive opinion that the said signatures are of vendor's wife. Be that as it may, the allegations against the petitioners are Crl. Misc. No. M-30133 of 2011 4 serious. They do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed. November 14, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE