Criminal Misc. No. M-80 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-80 of 2011 Date of decision : 17.03.2011 Anoop Singh and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners vide FIR No. 143 dated 16.10.2010 under Sections 420 IPC at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners have themselves been cheated in the transaction and main accused namely Daler Singh has already been arrested by the police. He submits that petitioners are thus entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. He submits that stamp paper on which antedated agreement was prepared is yet to be recovered and investigation has to be taken to its logical end and for this purpose custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Heard. Criminal Misc. No. M-80 of 2011 2 The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Sukhwinder Kaur who alleged that Daler Singh had sold the land vide agreement dated August 20, 2007. However, later on civil proceedings were instituted against her on the basis of an agreement dated June 14, 2006. When she came to know about the said agreement, she lodged the present FIR, alleging that she has been cheated by the petitioner and co-accused Daler Singh. The stand of the investigating agency is that agreement dated June 14, 2006 is in fact a sham document and has been deliberately antedated in order to deprive the complainant of her right. This apart, the stamp paper on which the same has been executed does not bear any seal or particulars of the stamp vendor nor the date of purchase thereof is clear. In view of nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, I am of the considered view that they are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. In fact custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. The petition is thus without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. March 17, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE