High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/23740/2020dismissed

Nanhe Lal v. State Of Punjab

2020-12-14Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23740-2020 Decided on : 14.12.2020 Nanhe Lal . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CRM-M-23855-2020 Phool Kumari . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CRM-M-23860-2020 Ram Charan . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL (Through Video Conferencing) PRESENT: Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab assisted by ASI Gurjeet Singh.

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral):

This order shall dispose of CRM-M-23740-2020, CRM-M23855-2020 and CRM-M-23860-2020, as the issue involved in all the cases is similar.

The instant petitions have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, in case FIR No. 84, dated 19.03.2020, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Ludhiana.

In compliance to the order dated 21.08.2020, report of the JAWALA RAM 2020.12.15 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-23740-2020, CRM-M-23855-2020 & CRM-M-23860-2020 - 2 - Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ludhiana, has been received. As per the report of the Mediator, despite best efforts the matter could not be resolved between the parties.

A perusal of the FIR in question reveals that the petitioners in connivance with each other got a fresh sale-deed executed qua a property at Ludhiana, which had been purchased jointly by the petitioner Nanhe Lal and his brothers i.e. Mehngu Lal and Muni Lal (complainants) by way of impersonation, while the complainants Mehngu Lal and Muni Lal were away to their native place. Thereafter, the petitioners manipulated the entries in the jamabandi qua the ownership of the property in question, on the basis of the relevant documents, which had been prepared by way of impersonation.

The learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and has submitted that in view of the allegations levelled, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required. Heard.

Prima facie, there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR in question, for which they do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE December 14, 2020 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2020.12.15 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh