CRM-M-19822-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] CRM-M-19384-2011 (O&M) ::::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-19822-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:02.08.2011. Mehla Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents (2) CRM-M-19384-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:02.08.2011. Rajpreet alias Raju ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Anju Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners in CRM-M-19822-2011. Mr. APS Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner, in CRM-M-19384-2011. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent No.1/State. Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant in both the cases. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M-19822- 2011 titled as `Mehla Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another' and CRM-M-19384-2011 titled as `Rajpreet alias Raju Vs. State of Punjab and another' wherein the petitioner(s) have prayed for pre-arrest bail in a complaint case bearing No.RBT-116/1 dated 27.10.2005/07 titled as 'Iqbal Singh Vs. CRM-M-19822-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] CRM-M-19384-2011 (O&M) ::::::::: Mehla Singh and others', under Sections 302, 149, 120-B of IPC. In short, one Sohan Singh had two wives, namely Harnam Kaur and Sham Kaur. He had two sons from Harnam Kaur and six children from Sham Kaur. The pedigree table of Sohan Singh is given as under: - Sohan Singh | ------------------------------------------------------ | | Harnam Kaur Sham Kaur | | ----------------------- | | | | Joginder Singh Naginder Singh | | (deceased) | Mehla Singh | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | Sarban Singh Balwinder Singh Iqbal Singh Pal Singh Surti Singh Mukhtiar Kaur (complainant) Deceased Naginder Singh was owner of 8 acres of land and was unmarried. He was handicapped because his right leg was amputated due to snake bite. Naginder Singh died on 16.04.2004 in the house of Mehla Singh. Post mortem was conducted on 17.04.2004 in which the cause of death could not be disclosed in the absence of report of the Chemical Examination. As per Chemical Examination Report dated 28.05.2004, organophosphorus compound pesticides was detected in the stomach, small and large intestines, liver spleen, both kidneys and both lungs and also in the blood taken from the heart of the deceased. Iqbal Singh (complainant) had lodged the DDR on 16.04.2004 against Mehla Singh, whereas Mehla Singh lodged the DDR on 17.04.2004 with regard to the death of Naginder Singh. It is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that in the inquiry dated 02.01.2005, the petitioners have been found innocent, whereas they have been summoned in another private complaint lodged by Iqbal Singh on 27.10.2005 vide order dated 09.05.2011 in which they had prayed for anticipatory bail, but the learned Court below had erred in rejecting the same CRM-M-19822-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] CRM-M-19384-2011 (O&M) ::::::::: vide its order dated 11.06.2011. It is further submitted that Naginder Singh (deceased) being handicapped was living with Mehla Singh. He had executed a General Power of Attorney on 02.01.2003 in favour of Mehla Singh on the basis of which he had sold land of the deceased to Rashpal Singh. He further submitted that the deceased had appeared before the SDM, Ferozepur on 30.01.2003 and made a statement that he is living with his nephew Mehla Singh of his own sweet will and later on had even executed a Will in his favour on 18.12.2003. He further contended that Hardeep Singh son of Surti Singh is alleged to have been adopted by deceased Naginder Singh who had left for England and settled there. Naginder Singh had filed a suit for cancellation of adoption deed in favour Hardeep Singh on 21.11.2003. It is also submitted that the occurrence took place on 16.04.2004, whereas the complaint had been filed on 27.10.2005 on the ground that 10 days back, Mehla Singh had made a confessional statement of killing Naginder Singh (deceased) although there was no occasion for him to do so before unknown persons when the police had already closed the inquiry. He further submitted that initially, the Court had issued summons to procure presence of the petitioners on 04.01.2011, but after dismissal of their anticipatory bail applications, non-bailable warrants have been issued against them. In CRM-M-19822-2011, notice of motion was issued and in the meantime arrest of the petitioners therein was stayed, whereas in another case, i.e. CRM-M-19384-2011, only notice of motion has been issued but no stay has been granted. Pursuant to the notice, the complainant has put in appearance and has filed an application bearing CRM-38842-2011 in order to place on record certain documents which has been allowed by a separate order of the even date. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that Naginder Singh has not died a natural death but has been poisoned. Mehla Singh, while recording the DDR No.5 dated 17.04.2004 with the Police Station Ghall Khurd, did not aver that the deceased Naginder Singh had committed suicide and has not explained the circumstances in which he had died in his house. He further submitted that there is a tussle between two sections of the family members of CRM-M-19822-2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] CRM-M-19384-2011 (O&M) ::::::::: the deceased Naginder Singh for his property (8 acres of land) as the deceased was unmarried and handicapped. Mehla Singh obtained General Power of Attorney and Will of the deceased, whereas Surti Singh gave his son Hardeep Singh in adoption to Naginder Singh in order to succeed to his property. It is further contended that Mehla Singh had executed sale deed in favour of Rajpreet Singh who is one of the nephews of Mehla Singh and Rashpal Singh who is brother-in-law (Behnoi) of Mehla Singh. Although the land was sold for a sum of `5,89,000/- but no consideration was transferred before the Sub Registrar. He further submitted that nephew of Mehla Singh, to whom 17 Kanals 17 Marlas of land was sold, had further sold it to Daljeet Singh son of Mehla Singh. It is also submitted that no explanation is forthcoming about the unnatural death of Naginder Singh in the house of Mehla Singh who has been the beneficiary of his property as he was in possession of General Power of Attorney as well as the Will and had sold the land to his near and dears. He also submitted that the Civil Suit for declaration by Naginder Singh (deceased) challenging the adoption deed in favour of Hardeep Singh is also the handiwork of Mehla Singh as he did not want that the property may go to Hardeep Singh. I have taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case and the order of the learned Court below dated 11.06.2011 by which pre-arrest bail applications of the petitioner(s) have been declined and I am of the view that there is no error in the order of the Court below. Hence, the present petitions are hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 07.07.2011 passed by this Court in CRM-M-19822-2011 is hereby vacated. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. August 02, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE