CRM-M 15017of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on Aug 18,2009. Dilraj Singh and another -- Petitioners vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat,AAG,Punjab Mr.G.S.Sandhu,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.37 dated 17.4.2009 under Sections 420, 465,467,468,471 IPC at Police Station, Lambi. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of District Collector, Muktsar, in which it has been alleged that Navjot Kaur daughter of Simerjit Kaur daughter of Jamiat Singh @ Kartar Singh has requested that decision qua mutation No. 2560 of village Khudian Gulab Singh was announced on 29.2.2009 by Sub Divisional Collector, Malout in which Simerjit Kaur has been shown as issueless, is an act of fraud on the part of the accused as the land of Simerjit Kaur has been illegally got inherited by Bikramajit Singh son of Jamiat Singh, Dilraj Singh son of Ranjodh Singh son of Jamiat Singh The said pedigree table in which CRM-M 15017of 2009 (O&M) 2 Simerjit Kaur has been shown issueless, has been verified by Hardeep Singh Harijan Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Jamiat Singh had three daughters namely, Gurpal Kaur, Gurjeet Kaur, Simerjit Kaur and two sons, Bikramjit Singh and Ranjodh Singh. Ranjodh Singh left behind his widow namely, Basant Kaur and two sons Dilraj Singh and Sukhraj Singh. During his life time, Jamiat Singh retained 1/3rd share of joint family property after giving 1/3rd share each to his sons Bikramjit Singh and Ranjodh Singh. After his death, Jamiat Singh gave 1/3rd share to his daughter Simerjit Kaur by way of decree and will. The said decree and will was challenged by sons of said Jamiat Singh, namely Bikramjit Singh, Dilraj Singh and Sukhraj Singh by way of civil suit which was decreed, but they lost thereafter up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. During the pendency of civil litigation, Simerjit Kaur died on 13.10.2006 . On 1.2.2007, mutation of the property of Simerjit Kaur was sanctioned on the basis of decree and will given by Jamiat Singh but the said mutation was challenged by way of appeal by Dilraj Singh which was allowed on 29.2.2008 by Sub Divisional Collector, Malout. In the said appeal, Navjot Kaur wife of Harvinder Singh was impleaded as a party, who alleged herself to be the daughter of said Simerjit Kaur. In the meanwhile, on the basis of the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Collector, Muktsar, allowed to review mutation No.2560 vide his order dated 24.3.2009. The said order was challenged by Dilraj Singh (petitioner No.1) by way of appeal before the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. It is further submitted that vide order dated 30.4.2009 (Annexure P-3), the order dated 29.2.2009 by which the order of review CRM-M 15017of 2009 (O&M) 3 was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum District Collector, Muktsar, was stayed. Apprehending their arrest in the aforesaid FIR and before coming to this Court, the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Muktsar, which was dismissed on 28.4.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Simerjit Kaur had left the village somewhere in the year 1985 and had not visited for once and as such Nambardar of the village has stated in the proceedings which culminated into order Annexure P-1 that “ he cannot say about Navjot Kaur as to who she is”. He further submitted that co-accused namely Sukhraj Singh and Hardip Singh have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in CRM-M 13201 of 2009 on 19.5.2009 by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sham Sunder. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant has filed CRM No.36673 of 2009 in order to place on record a copy of the order dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure R-1) and copy of order passed by the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur dated 18.6.2009 (Annexure R-2). It is further submitted that appeal filed by Dilraj Singh (petitioner No.1) under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act,1887 against the order dated 24.3.2009 passed by District Collector, Muktsar vide which permission has been granted to S.D.M, malout for reviewing the pedigree table prepared in Mutation No. 2560 of village Khudian Gulab Singh, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar in which Smt. Simerjit Kaur d/o Sh. Jamiat Singh alias Kartar Singh had been shown as issueless, has been dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur on CRM-M 15017of 2009 (O&M) 4 18.6.2009. Therefore, the stay which was granted granted vide Annexure P-3 does not survive. It is also submitted that Bikramjit Singh son of Jamiat Singh, Dilraj Singh and Sukhraj Singh sons of Ranjodh Singh had filed civil suit against Simerjit Kaur, Gurpal Kaur, Parminder Kaur, Pushpinder Kaur, Amar Partap Singh as well as Basant Kaur widow of Ranjodh Singh to the effect that consent decree suffered by Jamiat Singh in favour of Simerjit Kaur be declared null and void, which was decreed by the trial Court in favour of Bikramjit Singh, Dilraj Singh and Sukhraj Singh. The said decision was challenged by Simerjit Kaur by way of appeal No. RT 330 of 23.10.1997/22.11.1995 which was decided on 12.5.2003 in her favour holding that Simerjit Kaur is the owner in possession of the suit property since 5.5.1991 when mutation No. 2105 was attested six months earlier to the death of deceased Jamiat Singh. The said decision was challenged by Bikramjit Singh etc.in RSA Nos. 3670 and 3671 of 2003 but the same was dismissed by this Court on 30.4.2006. Further Special Leave Petition filed by Bikramjit Singh and others was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 31.10.2006. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. It is worthwhile to mention here that co-accused Hardip Singh in CRM-M 13201 of 2009 made a statement, at the time of sanction of mutation, that Simerjit Kaur died issueless and attested the pedigree-table. Similar is the allegation against petitioner No.1 but there is no such allegation against petitioner No.2. It is also relevant to mention here that the learned Commissioner while dismissing the appeal (Annexure R-2) has observed that 'this order does not directly affect the persons who were CRM-M 15017of 2009 (O&M) 5 parties to the order to be reviewed, as the rights of the parties are yet to be determined by the SDM, Malout'. This Court at the time of notice of motion and also granting interim bail has observed that 'no case for custodial interrogation appears to have been made out'. The fact that the petitioners had arrayed Navjot Kaur as a respondent shows that no concealment was made whereas Navjot Kaur despite registered notices and munadi did not appear. As the case is largely based upon documents and no recovery is to be effected coupled with the fact that petitioner No.2. is an old man of 68 years having been born on 04.4.1941 and petitioner No.1 has been attributed same allegations which are attributed to Hardip Singh, who is already on anticipatory bail granted by this Court, I deem it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have joined the investigation in terms of the order passed by this Court on 09.6.2009. This fact is admitted by the learned State Counsel. In view of the above, order dated 09.6.2009 is made absolute. The petitioners shall,however, keep on joining the investigation as and when required and shall abide by the provisions of Sections 438 (2) Cr.P.C. This petition stands disposed of. Aug 18,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge