IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 633 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.08.2011 Het Ram …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J. S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 106 of 2011 registered on 4.6.2011 at Police Station, Dhalli, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The status report filed and same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner is 78 years old. Smt. Janki executed some relinquishment deeds in the year 1989 in favour of the petitioner and mutations also attested in favour of petitioner on the basis of such relinquishment deeds. 3. It has been alleged that now FIR No. 106 of 2011 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Dhalli on the allegations that relinquishment deeds have been procured by the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 petitioner from Smt. Janki by misrepresentation of facts and playing fraud. Smt. Janki is the sister of the petitioner, who relinquished her share in favour of the petitioner voluntarily. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. He is ready to join the investigation. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. He is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest on account of registration of the case. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Assistant Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that the petitioner got prepared five relinquishment deeds of Smt. Janki by playing fraud. Smt. Janki has denied her thumb mark on the relinquishment deeds. The attesting witnesses of the relinquishment deeds have also denied their signatures on the relinquishment deeds. The handwriting and signatures of the petitioner are yet to be taken. It is to be investigated who has put signatures and thumb marks on the relinquishment deeds. 5. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the police file. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has joined the investigation but there is nothing in the status report that petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation. It appears the case is document based inasmuch as the main allegation against the petitioner is that relinquishment deeds are not signed or thumb marked by Smt. Janki nor by the attesting witnesses. In these circumstances, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is 3 not necessary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 106 of 2011 dated 4.6.2011 registered at Police Station, Dhalli, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, he is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence or overawe the prosecution witnesses in any in any manner. 7. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti. August 26, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.