IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-17011 of 2009 Date of decision : July 15, 2009 Roshan Lal and another ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Roshan Lal Jain and Varinder Kumar have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 65 dated 21.5.2009 under sections 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station City Fazilka, District Ferozepur. According to prosecution version, Prahlad Rai since deceased father of complainant Sadhna Jain inducted Krishan Lal as his tenant in the disputed property in the year 1993. After death of Prahlad Rai, Krishan Lal executed fresh rent note dated 18.7.2005 in favour of the complainant and continued to pay her rent till 2006 against receipt. Krishan Lal used to remain ill and therefore to run the shop he inducted Anil Kumar in the shop with consent of the complainant. However, Roshan Lal petitioner no. 1 and Ravi Kant non-petitioner who are uncles of the complainant in connivance with Anil Kumar executed rent agreement dated 11.1.2007 Criminal Misc. No. M-17011 of 2009 -2- showing Anil Kumar as tenant under Ravi Kant. Fake rent receipt was also issued to defeat the rights of the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. In so far as Varinder Kumar petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he is only attesting witness of the rent agreement. He had no concern with the property. He has also joined investigation pursuant to interim order of this Court. Consequently, interim order dated 27.6.2009 qua petitioner no. 2 is made absolute, to remain effective till one month after the filing of the charge sheet by the police or till the decision of the regular bail petition of petitioner no. 2, whichever is earlier. In so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he is real uncle of the complainant and also claims to be co-sharer in the property. He is also witness of the rent note. Creation of rent note with his assistance was obviously with dishonest intention to defeat the right of the complainant. Petitioner no. 1 being uncle of the complainant and claiming himself to be co-sharer, prima-facie was aware of the factual position. In view of the aforesaid but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, in my view petitioner no. 1 does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The instant petition qua petitioner no. 1 is accordingly dismissed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 15, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'