IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-19171 of 2010 Date of decision : 8.7.2010 Lakhwinder Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the only role attributed to the petitioner in the case is that he is stated to be a witness to the sale deed dated 24.12.2003 (Annexure P1) which is executed by Dalip Singh through his special power of attorney Ravi Sharma in favour of Gurdeep Singh. A reference has been made to the vernacular of the said sale deed (Annexure P1) which is on record to contend that only the name of the petitioner is written and he has not signed the same. It is submitted that the further allegation against the petitioner is that Ravi Sharma sold the property to Gurdeep Singh. The said Gurdeep Singh gave a general power of attorney to the petitioner and his brother and they sold the plot in question to Kuldip Singh. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the case of the complainant Resham Singh is that his father Dalip Singh (sic. Daljit Singh) son of Sudha Singh had purchased one plot of 500 sq. yards comprised in Killa No.87/15/1 in village Nangali, Tehsil CRM No. M-19171 of 2010 [2] and District Amritsar vide registered sale deed dated 7.1.1983 from Ajit Singh. The mutation regarding purchase of the said plot was entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1990-91. However, due to error on the part of the Patwari in the Jamabandi for the year 1995-96 instead of writing Dalip Singh son of Sudha Singh, it was recorded Dalip Singh son of Sohan Singh. When the complainant Resham Singh approached the Patwari for getting a copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2000-01, the owner of the plot was recorded as Dalip Singh son of Sohan Singh. On further checking it transpired that by taking undue advantage of the wrong mention of the father's name of Dalip Singh, one Ravi Sharma connived with one Dalip Singh son of Sohan Singh and prepared a forged power of attorney No.3864 dated 28.10.2003. In pursuance of the said power of attorney, the property was sold by a registered sale deed dated 24.12.2003 (Annexure P1) to Gurdip Singh. Mutation No.13597 was also entered in respect of the said sale. The said Gurdip Singh connived with the petitioner and his brother Rajinder Kumar and gave him general power of attorney and vide registered sale deed dated 28.9.2004 sold the plot to Kuldip Singh for Rs.4,50,000/-. Its mutation was also sanctioned. The complainant has since got the mutations in respect of the plot corrected from the revenue authorities in his name. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is only depicted as a witness to the sale deed dated 24.12.2003 (Annexure P1) and he has not signed the same though may be correct. However, a perusal of the order dated 21.5.2010 (Annexure P2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar while declining the bail to the petitioner shows that during the inquiry, it was found that the petitioner and Gurmukh Singh impersonated Dalip Singh and got executed a special power CRM No. M-19171 of 2010 [3] of attorney in favour of Ravi Sharma which could not be traced. The same was in order to usurp the plot of Resham Singh. Therefore, it is not as if only the name of the petitioner has been depicted in the sale deed dated 24.12.2003 but during inquiry it was found that in order to usurp the plot of Resham Singh, the petitioner and Gurmukh Singh had impersonated Dalip Singh and got a special power of attorney in favour of Ravi Sharma which could not be traced. The plot in question was sold by Ravi Sharma on the basis of the power of attorney alleged to have been executed in his favour on 28.10.2003 to one Gurdip Singh who gave a general power of attorney to the petitioner and on the basis of the same, the petitioner further sold the plot to Kuldip Singh. In the circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary to ascertain as to who are the persons who had impersonated as Dalip Singh and to trace out the power of attorney dated 28.10.2003 on the basis of which Ravi Sharma sold the property to Gurdeep Singh. It is well-known that considerations governing the Court's decision on an application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending an appeal before a higher Court. In a case of pre-arrest bail, the advantage of custodial interrogation so as to elicit more information and material which may be useful is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extraordinary in character. In the circumstances, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. The Crl. Misc. petition, is accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE 8.7.2010 amit