Crl. Misc. No.M-6860 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-6860 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 27, 2011 N.K. Vijay Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.K.S. Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Ajit Kumar Pandey alleging that his mother Smt.Premwati had a plot No.B-41, Sector 11, Faridabad in her name. After her death, the complainant alongwith five brothers and sisters become owner in possession of the same. His mother expired on August 22, 2022 at AIIMS, New Delhi. His father had died on February 23, 1995 at Mool Chand Hospital. The plot was purchased by his mother vide conveyance Crl. Misc. No.M-6860 of 2011 [2] deed dated April 25, 1974 from DLF United Limited. On January 9, 2011 at 10.00 a.m. he received an intimation on his mobile phone that some gunda elements were digging his plot with JCB. When he went from Delhi, he saw some people digging the plot with JCB machines. When he tried to stop them they showed him a forged sale deed dated November 4, 2010. As per the said sale deed, Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi son of Vijay Kumar Dwivedi of District Shahjahanpur (UP) appointed the petitioner as General Power of attorney vide a document dated October 15, 2010 from the office of S.R. Shahjahanpur, U.P.. In the said General Power of Attorney, Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi had shown the mother of the complainant as his grand-mother and the name of the father of the complainant was shown as U.S. Pandey @ Hira Lal Pandey whereas Hira Lal Pandey had never been used by father of the complainant. The date of death of mother of the complainant was shown as March 20, 1997 whereas she had died on August 22, 2002. By a fraudulent sale deed, the petitioner had sold the said plot for a sum of ` 4250000/- to Smt.Veena R. Menon of Patel Nagar-II, Ghaziabad UP. In the said sale deed, the witnesses are Gajraj Singh, Lambardar resident of Uchagaon and Shiv Charan, Lambardar, R/o Sihi. The petitioner had allegedly told the complainant that he had sold this plot to his daughter Veena. A power of attorney was shown by the petitioner to the complainant indicating the date of death of mother of complainant as March 20, 1997. In General Power of Attorney, Mohd. Hashim of Tehsil Sadar, District Shahjahanpur and Avdesh Kumar of District Shahjahanpur had been shown as witnesses. The documents had been allegedly drafted by Riazul Nabbi, Crl. Misc. No.M-6860 of 2011 [3] Advocate, Court Compound, Shahjahanpur and typed by Amar of Saharanpur. The petitioner had shown the complainant a copy of the judgment in suit No.602 of 2006 in which Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi conspired with his two sisters Reeta Kumar and Neeta Kumari and showed mother of the complainant as his Nani and field a declaration suit through one Advocate Gianender Singh Gangwar, in Saharanpur on the basis of a Will dated January 16, 1997 attested by Ashok Kumar representing that mother of the complainant was issueless while in reality the mother of the complainant had six children. None of the sisters were shown as parties in the said suit. All the persons had fraudulently obtained an order from the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur on April 29, 2007. On the basis of these documents, the petitioner had asked the complainant to leave the plot. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner himself has been duped on the basis of fake documents prepared by Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi and other persons who had allegedly persuaded the petitioner to purchase the property for consideration on the basis of the fake documents. The petitioner, no doubt, is a property dealer. He seems to have been persuaded by his co-accused Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, Mohd. Hashim, Ajit Kumar and others. All the fictitious documents appear to have been prepared by a gang of land grabbers but at the same time, the fact cannot be ignored that the petitioner is at the tale end of the gang of the grabbers. He appears to have connived with his co-accused in preparation Crl. Misc. No.M-6860 of 2011 [4] and fabrication of documents but since he has himself produced all the documents before the complainant it will be debatable during trial whether he was part of the fraudulent transactions or he himself has been cheated by his co-accused but the fact remains that he has transferred the property to his daughter. Whether the father could have intentionally involved his own daughter in a case of land grabbing knowing that he does not have a valid power of attorney, would be an arguable point during trial. He has been in custody w.e.f. January 27, 2011. The statement of complainant has been recorded. Chances of tampering with the evidence are remote as all the documents have already been taken in possession. The allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature but at the same time, taking into consideration the fact that as the petitioner has been in custody for the last eight months, he could be granted the concession of bail, as the gravity of the offence seems to be slightly lesser qua him, if compared with the patent crime of fraud committed by his co-accused. Petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds for a sum of ` 2 lacs with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a specific condition that he will not leave India during the pendency of the trial and will deposit his passport with the trial Court. In case he claims that he does not have a passport, in that eventuality, he will furnish an affidavit to that effect before the trial Court. September 27, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE