IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12055 of 2010 Date of decision : 27.4.2010 Baljinder Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. HPS Rahi, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The FIR (Annexure P3) in the case has been registered on the complaint of Devinder Kaur wife of Nishan Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that she was married to Nishan Singh in 2005. They had a son from the wedlock. The complainant was living with her grand parents in law at home. In the name of her husband, there was one kothi in which she was living. Her husband gave power of attorney to the mother-in-law of the complainant for selling the house. The complainant had filed a suit and got a stay regarding sale of the house. However, despite stay, the mother-in-law of the complainant on the basis of power of attorney given by the husband of the complainant sold the house to her own brother Baljinder Singh Crl. Misc. No. M-12055 of 2010 [2] (petitioner). While executing the sale it is alleged that the name of the owner Nishan Singh (husband of the complainant) was changed to Nidhan Singh because there was a stay by Court regarding sale by Nishan Singh. Later by making a cutting with the connivance of revenue authorities the same was changed to Nishan Singh. It is alleged that the sale has been effected to defeat the rights of maintenance of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the right of charge would not be defeated as the right of charge, if any, would pass on to the vendee. Besides, it is submitted that the cutting of the name of Nidhan Singh to Nishan Singh is inconsequential as only a typographical mistake, which had occurred was corrected. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in his order dated 21.3.2010 (Annexure P1) has observed that the petitioner is the brother of the mother-in-law of the complainant. The complainant before lodging the present case had preferred a civil suit against her in-laws for maintenance wherein she also sought that charge be created over the property which is also subject matter of the suit. It is further observed that since there is a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and her in-laws and the present petitioner being maternal uncle of the husband of the complainant, as such, it appeared that there was some deep rooted conspiracy between the petitioner and his sister to defeat the rights of the helpless complainant from getting her due share from her husband’s property, Crl. Misc. No. M-12055 of 2010 [3] especially when her husband was not living with her and was residing abroad. The question regarding charge in respect of the property is not shown to have so far been decided in the civil suit. It is only that stay had been granted against sale of property. However, the mother-in-law of the complainant on the basis of power-of attorney (Annexure P5) sold the property to her brother (petitioner). The petitioner cannot be said to be unaware of the stay that had been granted. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The Crl. Misc. petition is according dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and it is only for the purpose of disposing of the application for bail. The learned trial Court shall consider the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of evidence and material independently as adduced before it. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE April 27, 2010 amit