IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 639 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.8.2011 ______________________________________________________ Bhag Singh ….. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent. ____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicant(s) : Mr. Ramakant Sharma,Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant A.G. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) This is an application for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.26 of 2011 dated 9.2.2011, registered at Police Station Nalagarh for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The Status report has been filed which has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner is apprehending his eminent arrest for having allegedly committed non-bailable offences and registration of case against him at Police Station, Nalagarh under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? and 120-B IPC. The petitioner is not connected with the commission of alleged offences. The allegation against the petitioner is only that he witnessed the execution of sale deed in favour of Dayal Chand and Jagar Nath. He has not identified any person before the Sub Registrar, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner has committed any offence. 3. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish the bail bonds in case he is released on bail. It has been stated that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner is a reputed business man of the area. 4. The petitioner had filed anticipatory bail application before learned Sessions Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh which has been dismissed on 18.8.2011. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 5. The bail application has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that there are in all five accused. Amar Singh has sold the land which is not owned by him to Jagar Nath, Dayal Chand. Yadwinder Singh, Bhag Singh are the attesting witnesses of the sale. Jagar Nath, Dayal Chand and Yadwinder Singh have been released on bail by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh on 20.8.2011. Amar Singh is in judicial custody. 6. It has been stated in the status report that Amar Singh impersonated as Bazir Chand. The petitioner is a property dealer and all accused have prepared a forged sale deed in the name of dead person Bazir Chand. The petitioner has played active role in preparing the forged sale deed. A forged voter card has also been made in the name of Bazir Chand and the petitioner is to be interrogated on all these aspects in the case. The prayer has been made for rejecting the bail application. 7. I have considered the arguments on either side. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has signed the alleged forged sale deed as a witness. The other attesting witness Yadwinder Singh has already been released on bail on 28.8.2011. The petitioner has not identified Amar Singh as Bazir Chand. The investigating agency has alleged that not only forged sale deed has been prepared by all the accused in conspiracy with each other but they have also prepared forged voter card of Bazir Chand. The petitioner is a property dealer. He is to be interrogated on all the aspects of the case so as to bring out the truth. The case of the petitioner for anticipatory bail cannot be equated with Yadwinder Singh who has been released on regular bail on 20.8.2011 by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh. The investigating agency in order to bring out the truth is pressing for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the case is not fit for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage, resultantly, petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 8. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. August 31 2011. (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.