CRM-M34614 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on Sept 09,2009. Hoshiar Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and another --Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Harish Nain,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Amit Khatkar,AAG,Haryana, for the respondent/State. Mr.Anil Gangas,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) apprehending his arrest in case registered vide FIR No.367 dated 03.7.2008 under Sections 420,467,468,471,380,120-B IPC at Police Station, City Jind. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of Tehsildar Jind, in which he has alleged that one Ved Parkash had produced sale deeds of two plots which were forged on checking of Head Registration Room of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Jind that sale deed No. 352 dated 02.5.1986 was not found pasted in Bahi No.1131. It was also found that there is an entry of sale deed No.352 dated 02.5.1986 in which Narse CRM-M34614 of 2008 2 son of Jai Lal resident of Ahirka is the vendor and Pala Ram son of Khajan Singh is the vendee. In the police investigation, Ved Parkash was found to have forged the sale deed, and he occupied the plot belonging to one Mahavir. During the investigation, confessional statement of Rajesh son of Lakhmi Chand Mahajan was recorded in which he stated that he alongwith Hoshiar Singh (petitioner), Ali, Surinder Kumar, Maha Singh and Beddu are in the business of property dealing. Beddu told him that there is a vacant plot of unknown Punjabi people near his house. He also told him that he will give double commission if the plot is sold legally. He went to Sonu alias Sumar Chand and discussed about the plot. He asked for his share and said there is an old registry of the plot bearing No.352 dated 02.5.1986 titled as Pala Ram son of Khajan Singh, resident of Kasun measuring 106 square yard. In the house of Beddu, he erased with shaving blade name of owner, address and directions and area of the plot in the vasika and he told Beddu that original record lies in Tehsil office and asked him to get vasika No.352 dated 02.5.1986 from the record, otherwise, fraud would be detected. Then Beddu and Ali (petitioner) got original vasika No.352 dated 02.5.1986 out with convenience of record keeper Surinder (non-applicant). He erased the name of owner, address ,directions and area of the plot in original vasika and typed the name Ved Parkash son of Rulia Ram in it. Similarly, directions were also changed and area was also replaced from 106 square yards to 136 square yards. Thereafter, he offered the said plot for sale to Zaber Singh son of Pirthi Singh at a lower rate of Rs.2,20,320/-and sold the plot to him (Zaber Singh) and they all shared this amount. Rs.30,000/- came to the share of Rajesh, CRM-M34614 of 2008 3 Rs.35,000/- came to the share of Ali, Rs.7000/- came to the share of Hoshiar Singh (petitioner) , Rs. 6000/-was taken by Maha Singh and remaining amount was taken away by Beddu. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as his name is not mentioned in the FIR, rather, he is named by his co-accused whose statement cannot be believed. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the offence committed by the petitioner is extremely serious as it pertains to change of record which is in possession of the Tehsildar by erasing particulars of the original sale deed. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of recovery. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances and gravity of the offence committed, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and the same is hereby dismissed. Sept 09,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge