IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-8652 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7 .4.2010 Gurmail Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.M.S.Rakkar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.P.S.Baath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Bhavna Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ** ORDER The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner in case FIR No.292 dated 18.11.2009 under Sections 419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being Lambardar of the village, had identified vendor on the basis of photograph attached with the sale deed and he is not a beneficiary. Moreover, the registry was to be done after verification of the documents by the Tehsildar and it was not his duty to verify all the documents. He identified only the vendor. Notice of motion as well as notice regarding stay was issued on 23.3.2010. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail Crl.Misc. No.M-8652 of 2010 [2] application on the ground that as per police record, Parkash Singh impersonated as Balbir Singh and was identified by the present petitioner being Lambardar by showing him as owner of the property. Learned counsel for the State has also shown from the original record that Parkash Singh impersonated as Balbir Singh on the basis of photograph whereas actually he was not Balbir Singh and the photograph was of Parkash Singh. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of FIR as well as order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the anticipatory bail filed by the present petitioner has been declined on the ground that the petitioner being Lambardar had identified the person who was not the owner of the land. It was a case of fraud as no property does exist in the name of Balbir Singh and Parkash Singh impersonated as Balbir Singh in connivance with present petitioner who prepared a forged and fabricated sale deed. Keeping in view the role of the present petitioner and seriousness of the offence, no ground is made out to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner as it is not a simple case of identification but the petitioner had identified a wrong person in whose name no land exist and the sale deed was prepared in a fraudulent manner. Dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE April 7, 2010. reena/raghav