CRM-M-20590 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - CRM-M-20594 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-20590 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.07.2011 Chuni Lal . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CRM-M-20594 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.07.2011 Charanjeet Kumar . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of aforesaid two bail applications. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that one Niranjan Singh had two sons namely, Daljit Singh and Surjit Singh and two daughters namely Baljit Kaur and Manjit Kaur. Baljit Kaur daughter of Niranjan Singh was married to Daljit Singh son of Piara Singh and gave birth to two sons Manjit Singh and Dalbir Singh. The said Baljit Kaur daughter of Niranjan Singh died on 13.10.1990. Thereafter, Daljit Singh son of Piara Singh remarried to another Baljit Kaur (Complainant). On 10.2.2006, a gift deed was executed of the property of Baljit Kaur daughter of Niranjan Singh, who had died on 13.10.1990 in favour of Vikranjit Singh son of Daljit Singh son of Niranjan Singh and Lovepreet Singh son of Surjit Singh son of Niranjan Singh. As per the endorsement of the Sub Registrar, Ambala, both the parties namely donor and donee were identified by Chuni Lal (Ex. Sarpanch), who CRM-M-20590 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - CRM-M-20594 of 2011 (O&M) has filed CRM-M-20590 of 2011 and Charanjeet Kumar (Lambardar), who has filed CRM-M-20954 of 2011. The FIR has been registered by the complainant on the ground that she was taken to the Tehsil office on the pretext of entering a mutation of the property of Baljit Kaur daughter of Niranjan Singh (since deceased) and was not aware that by producing her before the Sub Registrar deceased’s property has been gifted in favour of the grandsons of Niranjan Singh. Thus, it is alleged that the present petitioners in both the cases are part of conspiracy and forgery. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that Daljit Singh has signed in English, therefore, she could not say that she could not understand the proceedings which have been carried out. Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the petitioners in these two cases have acted apparently in connivance with the parents of the minor children in whose favour the gift deed has been executed of the property of the person who had died in the year 1990 and have wrongly identified the complainant in place of the deceased person. In view thereof, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in both the cases, hence both the petitions are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUNE 12, 2011 JUDGE Vivek