Crl. Misc. No. M-12121 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-12121 of 2011 Date of decision : May 23, 2011 Sukhjeet Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K. Handa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B of IPC at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda, vide FIR No.17 dated 13th February, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the entire story has been cooked up by the complainant to implicate her. Learned counsel contends that petitioner had purchased the land in question vide registered sale-deeds executed in the office of Naib Tehsildar, Talwandi Sabo and on the basis of the same, mutation was entered in her name. Thus, there is nothing to show that petitioner in any way committed any crime. She is, thus, entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel, however, opposed the prayer. He Crl. Misc. No. M-12121 of 2011 2 submits that petitioner in connivance with her husband and other co- accused got transferred two pieces of land in her favour (measuring 06 Kanals 17 Marlas and 18 Kanals 02 Marlas) respectively, vide sale- deeds No.2508 and 2509 both dated 13th October, 2010. According to him, actual owner of land was Ganpat Ram and Narain Dass, but petitioner and co-accused produced some unknown person as vendors in their place at the time of execution of sale-deed. As a result of impersonation, valuable land belonging to the original owner has been transferred in the name of the petitioner. He submits that her custodial interrogation is necessary for taking investigation to its logical end. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A complaint was moved by Nachhattar Singh before SHO, Police Station Raman stating that in the year 1947, at the time of partition, Ganpat Ram, Narain Dass and Hari Chand were allotted land in village Shergarh. After some time, these persons were allotted land near Kurukshetra. They handed over possession of land at village Shergarh to Bhag Singh. Even the land revenue in respect of the land was being deposited by the father of the complainant. However, petitioner in connivance with co-accused produced some unknown persons as vendors who impersonated as owners. This resulted into execution of the two sale deeds in her favour in respect of the land. It appears that before registration of the case, an inquiry was conducted by SHO, Police Station Raman who found substance in the allegations. Even Naib Tehsildar Talwandi Sabo vide his letter No.338 dated 9th Crl. Misc. No. M-12121 of 2011 3 December, 2010 informed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo that the land in question had been transferred in the name of Sukhjeet Kaur by producing some impersonators before the Sub Registrar in place of actual owners. In view of the nature of allegation that valuable land has been transferred in the name of the petitioner by adopting fraudulent means, I am of the considered view that she is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Case diary be returned. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE May 23, 2011 'rajpal'