IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-10095 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 6, 2010 Surjit Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.32, dated 10.3.2010, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. The allegations against petitioner-accused are that one Jagat Singh son of Hira Singh was owner of the land in dispute, who died on 25.8.1972. The sale-deed bearing registry No.282, was executed on 13.5.1993, allegedly by Jagat Singh son of Hira Singh in favour of Shokin Singh son of Beant Singh-accused. The present applicant-accused is a witness to the said sale-deed alongwith Ram Sharan, Lambardar, who has already expired. A detailed enquiry was got conducted by Vigilance Bureau, Punjab and only thereafter, the present FIR was registered. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he identified only Shokin Singh, vendee and not Jagat Singh. He has further contended that even in civil proceedings he gave statement that he did not know Jagat Singh and that he had never seen Jagat Singh and, however, he signed sale-deed on the asking of Shokin Singh. He has also contended that Jagat Singh never signed in his presence. A perusal of the sale-deed shows that applicant-accused alongwith Ram Sharan, attested the sale-deed as a witness and only on their attestation, the sale-deed was registered by the Sub Registrar. It is yet to be ascertained as to who impersonated Jagat Singh. The other attesting witness Ram Sharan already expired, hence, custodial interrogation of Surjit Singh is necessary to know as to who impersonated Jagat Singh at the time of registration of sale-deed on behalf of Jagat Singh. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, petitioner-accused is not entitled to extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Rather his custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, the present petition filed by petitioner-Surjit Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 6.4.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge