Cr.Misc. NO.M 7025 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO.M 7025 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION 31.3.2009 Rohtash Singh ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana. ......RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Chauidhari, Advocate Mr. Rattan Brar, AAG, Hry M.M.S.BEDI,J. This order will dispose of two connected petitions filed by Rohtash Singh (Cr.Misc. M 7025 of 2009) and Sarjeet Singh (Cr.Misc. M7831 of 2009) in a case registered at the instance of Janak Kumra alleging that the property of Bhoj Raj has been sold to Pirthi Singh by a registered sale deed dated 3.10.2008 on the identification of petitioner Rohtash Singh (Cr.Misc. M 7025 of 2009), in the capacity as a Nambardar. Sarjeet Singh petitioner (Cr.Misc. M 7831 of 2009) is alleged to have affirmed the identification and attestation of petitioner Rohtash Singh. It is pertinent to observe that the allegation of the prosecution is that Bhoj Raj had died much prior to the execution of the sale deed, as such identification by the petitioner of Balbir Singh, who impersonated Bhoj Raj was a fraudulent act. Learned counsel for Rohtash Singh has contended that the petitioner is an old man and in the capacity as a Nambardar he had identified the seller because he happens to be a relation of Pirthi Singh. The Sarpanch of Village Khera Khurmpur was also present along with the Cr.Misc. NO.M 7025 of 2009 2 purchaser. Both of them had asked Rohtash Singh, who is a Nambardar of the other village to identify the seller as Bhoj Raj. It is contended that the petitioner does not have any ill will or mala fide and the necessary element i.e mens rea is non existence in the present case as neither the petitioner is beneficiary nor he is alleged to have committed any wrong. So far as petitioner Sarjeet Singh is concerned, his counsel has contended that the petitioner has only affixed his signatures after he was told by the other witnesses and the persons present at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 3.10.2008 that the seller was Bhoj Raj. There is no mala fide on the part of Sarjeet Singh. Learned counsel for both the petitioners have argued that pursuant to the alleged sale deed dated 3.10.2008 neither the possession has been transferred nor the ownership has been got transferred in the revenue record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the police file and the various documents taken in possession by the police. A perusal of the sale deed dated 3.10.2008 clearly indicates that the Sub Registrar has registered the sale deed on the identification of petitioner Rohtash Singh, who had appeared in the capacity as a Nambardar. The sale deed also bears the signatures of Sarjeet Singh as a Nambardar (witness No.2). The petitioners apparently have misused their status as Nambardars to identify Bhoj Raj whereas Bhoj Raj had died 40 years ago regarding which evidence has already been gathered. Even if it is presumed that the petitioners have affixed their thumb impressions/ signatures as witnesses on the asking of the Sarpanch or the purchaser, they cannot be exonerated of their criminal liability at this stage when the investigation is at initial stage. The grounds put forth by the petitioners may constitute a good ground for the grant of regular bail but in view of the Cr.Misc. NO.M 7025 of 2009 3 crude attempt to transfer the land of a deceased person, no concession of pre-arrest bail can be granted. Both the petitions are dismissed. Nothing said in the order will prejudice the rights of the petitioners for getting regular bail. March 31 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE