Crl.M.No.M-28749 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-28749 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:October 1, 2010 Kanta Ahlawat .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.51407 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-28749 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.287, dated 20.8.2010, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Complainant in this case is an NRI, who is stated to have been cheated by petitioner-accused in connivance with co-accused. Complainant is owner of plot bearing Nos.92 and 93, situated in Pala Vihar Extension, Dharam Colony, Gurgaon, which was bought by her in the year 1995, vide a registered sale deed. When she visited Gurgaon and visited the said property, she came to know that co-accused Sunil Kumar was in possession of the same. As per allegations, her power of attorney was forged by the present petitioner-accused and on the basis of that another power of Crl.M.No.M-28749 of 2010 (O&M) -2- attorney was given in favour of co-accused by the present petitioner- accused. During investigation, it was found that endorsement in the said power of attorney of Jharkhand is also a forged one and the power of attorney pertained to the property, i.e., plot No.88 situated at Palam Vihar Gurgaon. However word `KH' has been added later on. There is no agreement of sale or sale-deed in favour of the co-accused Sunil Kumar, who was handed over the possession of the property belonging to the complainant. There is no mention of any consideration even in the alleged power of attorney executed in favour of co-accused by the present petitioner-accused. On the similar facts, anticipatory bail application filed by co-accused Sunil Kumar was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.9.2010, passed in Crl.M.No.M-27111 of 2010. There are serious allegations against the petitioner-accused. It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Rather, her custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Kanta Ahlawat for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 1.10.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge