Criminal Misc.-M No. 26401 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 26401 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.9.2011 Rajinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had identified a wrong person at the time of execution of a power of attorney. The power of attorney has allegedly been executed by Mahadev Parkash son of Shri Mool Chand, aged 65 years, resident of Gram Mohalla, 125, Law Quarter Gobind Nagar, Tehsil Tajpur, District Kanpur (UP). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is Nambardar of village Barri Haveli, Ward No. 2, Tehsil and District Ropar had identified the executant of the power of attorney by seeing his voter ID card and also having been asked to do so by Krishan Kumar, Reader to Naib Tehsildar, Amarjit Singh son of Nachhatar Singh, resident of Mohali and Nahar Singh son of Santokh Singh, resident of Madan Pura, Phase-2, Mohali. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the voter ID card, which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, is in fact a forged document. Even otherwise, it is in the name of Mahadevkash Sethi. He is shown to be son of Toolchandra Sethi, aged 65 years, as on 1.1.1995, Criminal Misc.-M No. 26401 of 2011 [2] whereas in the power of attorney, the name of executant is mentioned as Mahadev Parkash. If it is taken to be so, the age of executant of the power of attorney as on today will be around 80 years, whereas from the photograph on the ID card, he appears to be quite young. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the case set up by the petitioner that he had identified Mahadev Parkash after seeing his voter ID card falls flat. If the name, parentage and age of Mahadev Parkash are compared with the particulars mentioned on the voter ID card, it is found that all the facts on the voter ID card and on the power of attorney are different. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 16.9.2011 mk