In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-7320 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:26.3.2009 Gurdeep Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The Gramin Bank through its Manager lodged a written complaint alleging that in the month of March 2008 Ranjit Singh had approached the Bank for the grant of loan facility. He offered to create registered mortgage with regard to his immovable property. Ranjit Singh submitted revenue papers prepared by Sukhdev Singh, Patwari. The documents included Farad Hakikat for the year 2004-05 and Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 pertaining to the field numbers situated at Village Bagharia. The mortgage deed was also executed on 17.3.2008 which was witnessed by Surjit Singh and Nirvail Singh. Surjit Singh also submitted a loan application for the grant of loan facility of Rs.5 Lacs and documents Cr. Misc. No.M-7320/2009 [2] i.e. Fard Hakikat and Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 with respect to field numbers prepared by Sukhdev Singh, Patwari were submitted. The bank advanced a loan on the basis of the documents after completion of formalities. Then the Bank received a complaint of Naunihal Singh and Smt. Ninder Kaur alleging that Surjit Singh had availed loan in respect of land which in fact belonged to them. They also approached the Tehsildar in this regard. Thereafter, the complainant-Bank came to know that Ranjit Singh, Surjit Singh and Sukhdev Singh, Patwari along with Nirvail Singh, Member Panchayat had committed fraud with different banks by providing them fake revenue records. During investigations, various other cases of similar nature came to light. Insofar as, the petitioner is concerned it was found that Balwant Singh son of Ravail Singh had mortgaged 33 Kanals of land in favour of Amritsar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Rajatal for availing loan of Rs.4 Lacs vide mortgage deed dated 1.2.2008. The said mortgage deed was witnessed by Surjit Singh, Lambardar and Gurdeep Singh (petitioner). The land which was given for the purpose of mortgage was not owned by Balwant Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-Gurdeep Singh is only an attesting witness to the mortgage deed dated 1.2.2008 and he has in no manner been a beneficiary. It is submitted that he has put his signatures in good faith which was also witnessed by Surjit Singh, Lambardar. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that Balwant Singh is the real paternal uncle (Chacha) of Gurdeep Singh and, therefore, it cannot be said to be an innocent act of just putting the Cr. Misc. No.M-7320/2009 [3] signatures. Besides, it is submitted that Jaswant Singh, father of the petitioner had also mortgaged 32 Kanals 19 Marlas of land with Amritsar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Rajatal for a sum of Rs. 4 Lacs on 1.2.2008 and this deed was witnessed by Surjit Singh, Lambardar and Ranjit Singh son of Balwant Singh. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that Gurdeep Singh had attested the mortgage deed of his paternal uncle (Chacha) on 1.2.2008 in respect of land measuring 33 Kanals which was not owned by Balwant Singh. Similarly, the son of Balwant Singh, namely, Ranjit Singh attested the mortgage deed on the same day i.e. 1.2.2008 executed by Jaswant Singh, the father of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the case is one of mere innocence as the son of Balwant Singh attested the mortgage deed of the father of the petitioner and the petitioner attested the mortgage deed of his paternal uncle (Chacha). In the circumstances, the present is not a case for grant of pre- arrest bail and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to ascertain other such transactions. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 26, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*