CRM No.M-22385 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 18.08.2011 1) CRM-M No.22385 of 2010 Fateh Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents 2) CRM-M No.28743 of 2010 (O&M) Mahavir …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent 3) CRM-M No.7291 of 2011 (O&M) Jagan …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CRM No.M-22385 of 2010 -2- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M Nos.22385 of 2010 and 7291 of 2011). Mr. R.S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M No.28743 of 2010). Mr. Man Mohan Sikka, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate for the complainant. AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of CRM-M Nos.22385 & 28743 of 2010 and CRM-M No.7291 of 2011. These three petitions have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case F.I.R. No.126 dated 20.03.2010 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Camp Palwal, District Palwal. The broad brush allegations are that a forged agreement to sell was executed with regard to the land of the complainant. The petitioner-Mahavir was the purchaser and the petitioners – Fateh Singh & Jagan were the attesting witnesses. On 05.08.2010 the following contention was noticed:- “Argues that the agreement regarding which the present FIR has been registered is CRM No.M-22385 of 2010 -3- dated 20.07.1998. Further contends that civil suit for specific performance is also pending since March, 2001. Further contends that petitioner is not in any way beneficiary. He is only an attesting witness to the agreement. Further contends that the present FIR has been lodged after about 12 years of the execution of the alleged agreement.” Today learned counsel for the petitioners have also argued that a suit for specific performance in respect to the same agreement to sell has been decreed against the complainant on 05.01.2011. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners have prayed that a doubt is cast on the entire prosecution story and, therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit thereof and thus to the relief of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has drawn attention of the Court to the fact that the decree has been appealed and the appeal is still pending and that the FSL report has now come as per which the signatures of the complainant on the agreement to sell are forged. He has also drawn attention of the Court to some misstatements of fact made in the affidavit dated 10.02.2011 which was executed by the petitioner – Fateh Singh. Learned Deputy Advocate General on instructions from S.I. Mool Chand has also corroborated the arguments of learned CRM No.M-22385 of 2010 -4- counsel for the complainant and verified the fact that numerous FIRs are pending against the petitioner – Fateh Singh and that even during the pendency of the petition two FIRs have been lodged against him and he has also been incarcerated in an another FIR. Be that as it may, in the opinion of this Court, at this stage the determinant would be the fact that a suit for specific performance in respect of the same agreement stands decreed and to that extent learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are correct that the benefit of that doubt has to go to the accused at this stage. In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Ordered accordingly. In the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be re- leased on bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petitions stand disposed of. A copy of this order be placed on the files of the con- nected cases. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 18, 2011 JUDGE ashish