CRM M 5449 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on July 27,2009. Mewa Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KJMAR JAIN Present: None for the petitioner Mrs.Rajni Gupta,Addl.A.G.Punjab. Mr.G.B.S.Dhillon,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in a case registered vide FIR No.349 dated 25.12.2008 under Sections 419,420,467,471,468,120-B IPC at Police Station, Division No.5, Ludhiana. The FIR has been registered by Sukhdev Singh alleging that property of Gurdev Singh resident of Australia has been sold by producing Lal Singh in place of Gurdev Singh at the time of execution of sale deed in favour of Pal Singh and Niranjan Singh in the year 1995. It is pertinent to mention here that before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which was dismissed on 19.2.2009. The CRM M 5449 of 2009 (O&M) 2 other co-accused Gurmel Singh filed CRM M No. 3001 of 2009 titled as Gurmel Singh Vs. State of Punjab, which was dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.S.Bedi, on 20.2.2009, observing as under:- “ I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State Counsel and gone through the police file. A perusal of the police file indicates that the property of real brother of the petitioner,namely Gurdev Singh has been fraudulently transferred by playing a fraud with the Registration Authorities as well as with the original owner. No doubt the sale deed has been executed in the year 1995 but the fact remains that the property of Gurdev Singh has been sold by Gurmel Singh, petitioner by producing Lal Singh in place of Gurdev Singh. Lal Singh was actually identified by the present petitioner Gurmel Singh though he is the real brother of Gurdev Singh. There may be malafide on the part of the complainant but prima facie the offences of fabrication of documents and cheating are clearly made out. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter-alia, argued that the petitioner is a marginal witness to the sale deed dated 8.12.1995 which is alleged to have been executed by impersonating Lal Singh as Gurdev Singh. The present bail application was also ordered to be heard with CRM Misc.No.2598 of 2009 (O&M) by this Court's order dated 16.3.2009. CRM M 5449 of 2009 (O&M) 3 The aforesaid CRM M No.2598 of 2009 (O&M) has already been dismissed by my separate order of even date . After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has taken active part in the aforesaid offences , I do not find any extra ordinary exceptional circumstances for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Hence, his bail application is hereby dismissed. July 27,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge