CRM Nos.33196 & 33452 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-33196 of 2010 Bakhtor Singh and Amrit Pal Singh ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-33452 of 2010 Labh Singh and Jagdev Singh ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Date of Decision:-25.11.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Kuldeep S.Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G.,Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail are involved in the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition. 2. Invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, petitioners Bakhtor Singh son of Bhag Singh, Amrit Pal Singh son of Lahora Singh, Labh Singh and Jagdev Singh sons of Hardial Singh, have filed the above mentioned two separate petitions for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused, namely, Lahora Singh, Roop Singh and Kartar Singh, vide FIR No.126 dated 7.10.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur. CRM Nos.33196 & 33452 of 2010 2 3. Notice of the petitions was issued to the State. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this regard. 5. At the very outset, the petitioners were directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Kanwaljit Singh, has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from them. 6. What is not disputed here is that petitioners were stated to have forged the Will dated 15.8.1992, allegedly executed by Chand Kaur and got mutation sanctioned in their favour. The present case was registered on 7.10.2010 after 18 years of the occurrence. The dispute pertaining to the inheritance of Chand Kaur (deceased) appears to be of a civil nature. The offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of their previous involvement in any such case. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as narrated here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, to me, the present petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 8. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such CRM Nos.33196 & 33452 of 2010 3 facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 9. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 25.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge