Crl. Misc. No.M-36506 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: September 21, 2011 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-36506 of 2010 Rajiv Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-21230 of 2011 Sukhdev Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent 3. Crl. Misc. No. M-21460 of 2011 Harish Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate Crl. Misc. No.M-36506 of 2010 [2] for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-36506 of 2010. Mr.A.K. Vermani, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Misc. Nos. M-21230 and 21460 of 2011 Mr.K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr.Anil Goel, Advocate for Mr.Vikram Chaudhari, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of three petitions bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-36506 of 2010, M-21230 and M-21460 of 2011, for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 312 dated July 23, 2010. The abovesaid FIR was registered at the instance of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar on the basis of a complaint sent to him by Arun Kumar Khanna of Kanpur through his power of attorney Pankaj Kapoor, alleging that in a property situated in Khasra No. 14 min., measuring 1070 sq. yards in Gillawali Gali, Putlighar, Tehsil and District Amritsar, Harish Kumar and Surinder Singh had got evicted tenants forcibly from sheds occupied by tenants on the basis of forged documents and that they had taken away all the articles of sheds, roofs, doors and taken illegal possession of the abovesaid property. On receipt of letter from Deputy Commissioner, SSP, Amritsar had got the matter investigated through DSP Sadar. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted by Sh.Inderbir Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Police Central, who found that property No. 3697 Khasra No.14 measuring 816 sq. yards in the area of Dilawari Market, near Putlighar consisting of sheds in dilapidated condition. Crl. Misc. No.M-36506 of 2010 [3] Smt.Parwati Devi through her power of attorney had purchased the same from Rajiv Kumar and on September 11, 2009 transferred the same in the name of Harish Kumar and Surinder Singh. The said partners gave money to the tenants, got it vacated and mutation No.20839 was entered in the name of Surinder Singh and Harish Kumar by the Patwari and Tehsildar. The power of attorney dated September 8, 2009 given by Parwati Devi in favour of Rajiv Kumar was verified by Lachman Singh, Sub Registrar. A conclusion was arrived at that main accused were Parvati Devi, Rajiv Kumar and the witnesses of the power of attorney i.e. Kulwinder Singh, Lambardar and Pankaj Kapoor who had got the signatures of the witnesses on the receipt regarding payment of money to Parvati Devi. It is not out of place to mention here that during the hearing Commissioner of Police, Amritsar City Sh.Parampal Singh Sidhu was required to furnish the details whether power of attorney executed in favour of Rajiv Kumar was genuine or not. Pursuant to the said directions, it was informed by affidavit that in compliance to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Court, it is submitted that one Jagan Nath son of Uttam Chand was residing in Dilawari Street, Putlighar, Amritsar City. He was holding a plot measuring 250 sq. yards, bearing Khasra No.87 who sold it to one Parvati Devi w/o Gopal Krishan R/o 345/E, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar in the year 1993. There was another Jagan Nath son of Maharajmal residing in the same street i.e. Dilawari Street, who was holding plot measuring 1066 sq. yards bearing khasra No.14 in the same area. In this plot there were constructed sheds which were given on rent to various persons by Jagan Nath. In the jamabandi for Crl. Misc. No.M-36506 of 2010 [4] the year 1995, Intkal of land bearing Khasra No.14 pertaining to Jagan Nath S/o Maharajmal was inadvertently entered in favour of Parvati Devi W/o Gopal Krishan. When this fact came into the notice of the petitioner, who with connivance of the other accused, after making a planning, subrogated one Parvati Devi and constituted a forged power of attorney of 816 sq. yards land in his name through Anil Kumar @ Bittu Wasika Navis on 8.9.2009. A copy of forged power of attorney is annexed as annexure R-1 for kind perusal. After 3 days i.e. on 1.9.2009, petitioner Rajiv Kumar executed a forged sale deed in the name of accused Harish Kumar and Surinder Singh. Accused Sukhdev Singh Chahal, Kulwinder Singh and one Rajesh Sharma, Advocate signed on the forged sale deed as witnesses. When the original Parvati Chaudhary came into the contact of Investigation Officer, she stated that she had already sold her plot measuring 250 sq. yards, bearing khasra No.87 to Kailash Kaur W/o Kirpal Singh R/o Dilawari Street, Putlighar, Amritsar on 28.7.1993. Except this plot, there is no land in her name situated in Dilawari Street, Putlighar, Amritsar and neither she has sold any other plot to any person. She does not know any Rajiv Kumar, Harish Kumar, Surinder Singh, Palwinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh Chahal etc. She also does not know any Anil Kumar @ Bittu Deed Writer and also she has not executed any power of attorney in the name of the petitioner with respect of 816 sq. yards land. Counsel for Rajiv Kumar has vehemently contended that dispute between the parties with regard to rights is pending before the Civil Court and the petitioner Rajiv Kumar is neither in possession of the Crl. Misc. No.M-36506 of 2010 [5] property nor is a party in the civil Suit. Pankaj Kapoor, who was complainant, was made an accused on the basis of enquiry conducted but he has been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on November 9, 2010. After having obtained pre-arrest bail, he sought intervention to oppose the petition of pre-arrest bail of petitioner Rajiv Kumar. Kulwinder Singh, co-accused of the petitioner has also been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail by High Court. No doubt, on the basis of enquiry, Rajiv Kumar had been found to have, in connivance with others, made a plan and subrogated one Parvati Devi and prepared forged power of attorney but at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the property of Jagan Nath had inadvertently been entered in favour of Parvati Devi. The petitioner ought to have got the rectification of the record through proper procedure of law. He having been found to have forged the document, is prima facie not considered to be absolutely innocent but prima facie it appears that wrongful loss has not been caused to the original owner and the locus standi of the complainant and the mode in which the FIR has been registered deserves to be scrutinized during trial. Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, it is sufficient to observe that petitioner Rajiv Kumar has already joined investigation. The dispute regarding the property is also sub-judice before the Civil Court. The petition of petitioner Rajiv Kumar can be allowed as he has already joined investigation and all the documents have already been taken in possession. Crl. Misc. No.M-36506 of 2010 [6] So far as petitioner Harish Kumar in Crl. Misc. No. M-21460 of 2011 is concerned, the allegation against him is that he had purchased the property in dispute from Rajiv Kumar and had a power of attorney. Kulwinder Singh who is a witness to the power of attorney in favour of Rajiv Kumar has been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail by this Court. It will be debatable during trial whether petitioner-Harish Kumar is a bonafide purchaser with consideration. He can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail as he has already joined investigation. The relevant documents have already been taken into possession by the investigation agency. Petitioner Sukhdev Singh Chahal is an attesting witness to the sale deed in favour of Harish Kumar. The title deed has been executed in favour of Harish Kumar on the basis of a power of attorney executed by Parvati Devi in favour of Rajiv Kumar. Since Rajiv Kumar and Harish Kumar have been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, there is no reason for denying the said right to petitioner Sukhdev Singh Chahal as it does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation. All the petitions are allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions that they will join investigation as and when required by the police; they will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner and they will not leave India without the permission of the trial Court. This order will remain operative till the presentation of challan. In case of presentation of Crl. Misc. No.M-36506 of 2010 [7] challan, the petitioners will be required to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate and furnish fresh bail bonds at an opportune time. September 21, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE