IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) Nos. 453, 454, 455 and 456 of 2012
Date of decision: 01.06.2012
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 453 of 2012
Nikka Ram S/o Sh. Mangat Singh, Resident of Village Bangarh,
Tehsil and District, Una, H.P.
…. Petitioner
Vs.
State of
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 454 of 2012
Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Lal, resident of Village Jakhera,
Tehsil and District, Una, H.P.
..Petitioner
Vs.
State of
3. Cr.MP(M) No. 455 of 2012
Dharma Shah, Chela Baba Pritam Shah, resident of Village
Bangarh, Tehsil and District, Una, H.P.
..Petitioner
Vs.
State of
4. Cr.MP(M) No. 456 of 2012
Kewal Krishan S/o Sh. Bishamber Dass, resident of Village
Jakhera, Tehsil and District, Una, H.P.
..Petitioner
Vs.
State of
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate (in all the petitions).
For the Respondent: Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G.
For the Complainant: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes
Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral)
This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) Nos. 453, 454, 455 and 456 of 2012 filed by Nikka Ram, Sanjeev Kumar, Dharma Shah and Kewal Krishan respectively under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail in FIR No. 130 of 2012 dated 22.5.2012 registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC.
2. It has been stated that Baba Pritam Shah executed his last Will dated 15.8.2011 in favour of Dharma Shah. The Will was scribed by Sanjeev Kumar and attested by Nikka Ram and Kewal Krishan. The complainant Satpal reported the matter to the police on the allegation that the said Will is a fabricated document falsely prepared by Dharma Shah in connivance with scribe and the attesting witnesses. Satpal has set up another Will dated 4.5.2010 in his favour by Baba Pritam Shah. The complainant in order to justify his Will has challenged the Will executed in favour of Dharma Shah.
3. The allegations against the petitioners are false. The property of Baba Pritam Shah has been mutated in favour of ‘Dera’. The dispute regarding the validity of the Will is purely civil in nature and no criminal case is made out. The complainant is an influential person.
4. On account of registration of the above case, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail.
5. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 453 of 2012. It has been stated that a communication dated 16.5.2012 was received in the Police Station on behalf of Satpal Saini. The
complainant has stated that he had been coming as General Power of Attorney of Baba Game Shah ‘Chela’ Baba Moju Shah. Baba Pritam Shah was Gaddi Nashin, who died on 15.1.2012. Baba Pritam Shah had executed a Will in favour of the complainant. The complainant had been looking after the property of Gaddi. The complainant got the mutation entered before Patwari on the basis of Will. It has been stated now, the complainant has come to know from Patwari that the petitioners have fabricated another Will in order to grab the property. On this case has been registered.
6. It has come in the investigation that Baba Pritam Game Moju Shah, Vangarh had executed Will dated 4.5.2010 in favour of Satpal Shah which was submitted by the complainant to Patwari on 12.3.2012 for mutation. The Patwari vide rapat No. 313 made the entry. Dharama Shah also produced the Will of Baba Pritam Game Moju Shah dated 15.8.2011. On 27.4.2012 the Tehsildar did not accept both the Wills and the mutation was attested in the name of ‘Dera’ vide mutation No. 993. The petitioners have joined the investigation. The Will dated 15.8.2011 has been taken into possession. As per the complainant, the Will dated 15.8.2011 is fake. The signatures and handwritings of the petitioners are to be taken for obtaining opinion from RFSL, Dharamshala. The petitioners are to be interrogated. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.
7. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the complainant. In Cr.MP(M) No. 455 of 2012 some documents have been placed on record alongwith Cr.MP No. 440 of 2012 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate has stated that bare perusal of signatures of Baba Pritam Shah on the copy of Sale Deed dated 12.11.1991 would show that signatures of Baba Pritam Shah on copy of Will dated 15.8.2011 are fake. This has also been opined so by the handwriting expert from whom the complainant obtained the opinion. He has submitted that serious forgery has been committed by the petitioners in connivance with each other to grab the property left by Baba Pritam Shah. He has submitted for rejection of the bail applications.
8. Heard and perused the record. The allegations against the petitioners are that they in connivance with each other prepared a fake Will dated 15.8.2011 of Baba Pritam Shah, who had already executed a Will dated 4.5.2010 in favour of the complainant. The Tehsildar has not accepted any Will as projected by the petitioners or the complainant. The Tehsildar has attested the mutation No.993 in favour of Dera. As of now, the property left by Baba Pritam Shah has not gone in the hands of Dharma Shah on the basis of Will dated 15.8.2011. The Will dated 15.8.2011 has been taken into possession during investigation. It is not the case of the investigating agency that petitioners are not co-operating or they will not be available for trial in
case they are released on bail. There is no allegation that petitioners are influencing any prosecution witness. The handwritings and signatures of the petitioners can be taken by the investigating agency if so required, even if the petitioners are on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of above, all the petitions being Cr.MP(M) Nos. 453, 454, 455 and 456 of 2012 are allowed. The petitioners in the event of arrest are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 130 of 2012 dated 22.5.2012 registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of ` 25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that the petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The petitioners shall cooperate in giving their signatures and handwritings, if so required, by the Investigating Officer.
10. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petitions only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Cr.M.P. No.440 of 2012 in Cr.MP(M) No. 455 of 2012 infructuous in view of disposal of main petition.
Copy dasti.
(Kuldip Singh),
(GR) Judge.
