In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-37464 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:21.12.2010 Birender Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 21.8.2009 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint made by Rev. Suresh Kumar on behalf of Delhi Diocesan Trust Association (`Trust' – for short). The said Trust is the owner of two properties bearing No.2470/71 admeasuring 1129 sq. yards and property bearing No.2435/5/A both situated at Circular Road, Rewari, Haryana. The said properties were sold by one Alberd Singh claiming himself to be a representative of the Trust. Property No.2470/71 was sold to Subhash Chand who claimed himself to be agent of Smt. Usha Yadav and Smt. Sell Narang. Property No.2435/5/A was sold to Subhash Chand claiming to be agent of Smt. Usha Yadav, Smt. Sell Narang and Smt. Bhagwati. The property bearing No.2470/71 was sold for a consideration of `3,62,83,500/- and property No.2435/5/A was sold for a consideration of `99,97,500/- respectively. The Cr. Misc. No.M-37464 of 2010 [2] amount has been deposited in the accounts of the Trust. The petitioner along with Lal Chand, Lambardar were the attesting witnesses to the sale deeds that were executed in favour of the aforesaid two properties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not, in any manner, the beneficiary of the transaction; besides, he did not identify a wrong person and he had rightly identified the seller. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the two properties of the Trust have been sold for an amount of about `4.62 Crores. The petitioner though claims that he is not the beneficiary, however, it may be noticed that the fact remains that he is an attesting witness to the two sale deeds which the person selling was not authorized to sell and were owned by the Trust. This would require to be investigated and gone into by the investigating authorities. The co-accused of the petitioner Lal Singh has been granted regular bail after his arrest. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the amount of transaction involved as also the fact that the property of the Trust has been sold without its authorization by a person who was not authorized to do so, and on which the petitioner had signed as a marginal witness are such circumstances for which his custodial interrogation would be required. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. December 21, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*