CRM No.M-36375 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-17.12.2010 Gurwinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh s/o Balwant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.K.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC., petitioner Gurwinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh s/o Balwant Singh, has instituted the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Raj Dulari wife of Ram Murti and Parminder Singh Bhullar and others, vide FIR No.250 dated 25.6.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Tripuri, Distt.Patiala. 2. Succinctly, the prosecution case is that complainant Dr.Jatinder Narula was the owner of the house/property in dispute. The petitioner and his co- accused hatched a criminal conspiracy and set up two false and fabricated Wills, first dated 25.4.1986 in favour of Jagdish Kumar and second dated 17.5.1987 in favour of Raj Dulari accused. Thereafter, the petitioner and his other co-accused had executed the false and fabricated sale deed bearing No.15498 dated 10.3.2010 and illegally sold the house and other property of the complainant, on the basis of forged power of attorney, in order to deprive him from his lawful property. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that petitioner alongwith his co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, prepared false and fabricated documents and CRM No.M-36375 of 2010 (O&M) 2 illegally sold the property of the complainant on the basis of forged power of attorney. On the strength of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition. 5. However, the main arguments of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and since there is no material against him, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are not tenable. 6. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, prepared false and fabricated Wills and other documents and illegally sold the property of the complainant on the basis of forged power of attorney. The mere fact that co- accused of the petitioner were arrested, remained in judicial custody and then were allowed regular bail after completion of the investigation, is not a ground to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, to me, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in order to un-earth the scam, elicit the truth and to complete the chain of evidence of the prosecution. 7. It is now well settled principle of law that anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. Ultimately, it may seriously affect the process of investigation. An order of anticipatory bail should not be made to create an in-road to the statutory investigational power of the police. In my view, if the petitioner is allowed anticipatory bail, it is likely to occasion interference in the investigational power of the police, which is not legally permissible. 8. In this manner, taking into consideration the allegations of heinous offences committed by the petitioner and totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed above, to my mind, the petitioner is not CRM No.M-36375 of 2010 (O&M) 3 entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail under these circumstances. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 17.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge