Crl. Misc. No.M-26753 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: November 10, 2010. Crl. Misc. No.M-26753 of 2010. Rajpal Singh and another .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab. . Respondent *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.S.P.s.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG., Punjab. Mr.J.S.Gill, Advocate, for the complainant. *** M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of his Bhabhi Daljit Kaur alleging that petitioner No.1 had forged a Will of his father dated 01.03.2003, whereas he had died on 04.03.2003. petitioner No.2 is an attesting witness of the said forged Will. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that the mutation has already been entered on the basis of the Will in dispute on 29.01.2004 and that sisters of petitioner No.1 had appeared before the revenue authorities admitting the claim of . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-26753 of 2010 petitioner No.1. A civil suit filed by the complainant for declaration that she being legal heir of Avtar Singh, real brother of petitioner No.1, is entitled to inherit 1/4th share as per the natural inheritance and as per the earlier registered Will dated 29.05.2002. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and State counsel as well as the counsel for the complainant. It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that petitioner No.2 is an attesting witness in the second Will as well as to the first Will and that he has connived with petitioner No.1 to grab the share of the complainant and the other sisters. The statements of the sisters have also been recorded regarding the fictitious Will having been prepared by petitioner No.1 while his father was unconscious for a period of 3-4 months prior to his death. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the complainant as well a the State counsel and going through the record, it is apparent that a registered Will has been sought to be superseded by the petitioner with an intention to grab the share of other brother and sisters. It also transpires that other co-sharers being in possession did not have any occasion to challenge the act of petitioner No.1. The petitioners, in routine could have been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail on the ground that the validity of the Will in favour of petitioner No.1 is sub judice before the civil Court, but the circumstances of the present case clearly depict the dubious . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-26753 of 2010 conduct of petitioner No.1of having taken active steps in fabricating a Will three days prior to the death of his father and getting the land mutated in his favour without there being any notice to his real brother. No ground is made out for the grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner No.1 Raj Pal. So far as petitioner No.2 Tara Singh, who is an attesting witness of the Will, is concerned, no doubt he can be attributed connivance with petitioner No.1 but he being not a beneficiary, in any manner, can be granted the concession of pre- arrest bail having joined investigation as it is not a case of custodial interrogation qua him and it is not a case where recoveries are to be effected from petitioner No.2, in any manner. The petition is dismissed qua petitioner No.1 Raj Pal and is allowed qua petitioner No.2 Tara Singh. It is ordered that in case of arrest of petitioner No.2, Tara Singh, he will be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions that he will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation, in any manner. He will also not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of during the pendency of the trial. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 10, 2010. rka . . . 3 Crl. Misc. No.M-26753 of 2010 . . . 4