Crl. Misc. No. M-29120 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-29120 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 1, 2011 Mukesh Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Mala Sharma, complainant alleging that the land of complainant was sold to Vijay Kumar by producing some other lady. So far as petitioner is concerned, he is a witness to the sale deed which was executed by impersonator. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had merely attested the sale deed. He places reliance on Section 3 of the Crl. Misc. No. M-29120 of 2011 [2] Transfer of Property Act to contend that he had merely signed the instrument to establish that the executant had signed in his presence. It is claimed that the petitioner had not identified the impersonator of Mala Sharma. It is claimed that it was only lambardar who had identified Mala Sharma and it was the scribe who had on the basis of wrong identification, identified the impersonator as Mala Sharma. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the copy of the registered sale deed which was attested by the petitioner as an attesting witness. A perusal of the sale deed indicates that petitioner has not only signed the sale deed as an attesting witness alongwith Bhula Ram, Lambardar, but has also signed the endorsement in presence of Sub Registrar which indicates that the impersonator of Mala Sharma and the purchaser Vijay Kumar were identified by Bhula Ram as well as by the petitioner. The attesting witness signing the document certainly signs the same to establish that he identifies the executant and that the executant has signed in his presence. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is known to purchaser Vijay Kumar and it was at his instance that the petitioner had gone before the Sub-Registrar as an attesting witness. Said plea of defence is sufficient enough to absolve the petitioner of his liability, cannot be appreciated at this stage. In view of prima facie evidence against the petitioner, for having identified an impersonator, I do not find any extraordinary Crl. Misc. No. M-29120 of 2011 [3] exceptional circumstances to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. Interim order vacated. December 1, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE