Crl. Misc. No. M-13652 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-13652 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 2.6.2011 Hari Pal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 & 120-B IPC at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, vide FIR No.48 dated 12th April, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is only an attesting witness to the will in question. He is, thus, not involved in the commission of crime in any manner and is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. He has placed reliance on judgment reported as Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2006 AIR SCW 4723. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that the petitioner in connivance with his brother Jagir Singh, forged a will purportedly written by one Nandu in their favour with a view to grab his property. He submits that whereabouts of Crl. Misc. No. M-13652 of 2011 2 Nandu are not known and the accused submitted an application stating that Nandu had died on 1st December, 1985. They produced the death certificate before the revenue authorities. During investigation by DSP, it was found that there was no entry pertaining to the death of said Nandu. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that Hari Pal petitioner alongwith his brother Jagir Singh forged a will and presented it before the revenue authorities. They also annexed a certificate to show that person (Nandu), who had executed the will, had died. During investigation, it was found that there was no entry of death of Nandu in the office of Civil Surgeon, Ropar. It is, thus, clear that allegations against the petitioner are of having committed fraud and forgery. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Kamaljit Singh's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 2.6.2011 'rajpal'