Crl. Misc. -M No. 21683 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 21683 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.10.2011 Gurdeep Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Chahal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Documents Annexures R-1 to R-3 filed in the Court today, are taken on record. While issuing notice of motion on 20.7.2011, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a civil suit on behalf of Atma Singh being power of attorney against Budh Singh brother of Atma Singh and produced some other person in court for passing of consent decree on 23.12.1988. The aforesaid decree was challenged by Nasib Singh by filing a civil suit on 27.1.1989 and the genuineness thereof was upheld by the Civil Court. The judgment was upheld in appeal. Budh Singh had even admitted in the suit filed by Nasib Singh challenging the consent decree dated 23.12.1988 that the decree suffered by Budh Singh in favour of Atma Singh was valid. The FIR came to be registered only on March 2, 2011 after more than 22 years of the alleged decree.” Crl. Misc. -M No. 21683 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that in the earlier civil litigation between the parties, where Budh Singh was a party, he had never appeared. He was not present in the country on the dates when written statement containing his thumb impression was filed. He was impersonated. The petitioner is closely related to Atma Singh, brother of Budh Singh. Sister of the petitioner is married to son of Atma Singh. Thumb impressions of Budh Singh on the written statement filed in Court have been compared with his standard thumb impressions and those were not found to be matching. In the entire litigation, the petitioner was representing Atma Singh as his attorney. In the civil suit filed by Nasib Singh challenging the consent decree dated 23.12.1988 suffered by Budh Singh in favour of Atma Singh, cousin of the petitioner Nirmal Singh had appeared as attorney of Budh Singh despite the fact that the power of attorney had already been cancelled much prior thereto. The petitioner, who is closely related in the family, cannot deny that he did not recognise Budh Singh or know that he was abroad. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the contentions raised, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 14.10.2011 Judge Meenu