Jaspreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-10765 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:19.8.2016 Jaspreet Singh Mom .....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab .....Respondent ....

(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-11620 of 2016 .....

Bhupinder Singh .....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab .....Respondent ....

Present:

Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.M-10765 of 2016.

Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.M-11620 of 2016.

Ms. Shivali, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This order will dispose of the above mentioned two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.4 dated 5.1.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station City

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-10765 of 2016 etc.

[2] Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.

Notice of motion has been issued in these cases. Ms. Shivali, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested these petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.

As per the case of the prosecution, petitioner Bhupinder Singh is the attesting witness to the second sale deed based on the revenue record and petitioner-Jaspreet Singh Mom is the Deed Writer. As per the allegations, the land in question alleged to have been earlier sold to the complainant vide sale deed dated 7.8.29014 by the co-accused/nonpetitioner Sanjay Mehra GPA holder has been again sold. There is no allegation that the attesting witness has identified any impersonator and the Deed Writer is only to scribe the documents. Both these petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no more required for custodial interrogation, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present cases; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases, I find merit in these petitions and the same are allowed. The interim orders dated 30.3.2016 and 4.4.2016 respectively passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioners are

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-10765 of 2016 etc.

[3] made absolute. However, the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

August 19, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No