Balwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 220 dated 2.8.2013 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant had filed a civil suit for declaration qua the property in question. Thereafter, FIR in question had been lodged. Petitioner had merely attested the Will in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the thumb impression of the executant from the photocopy of the Will was got compared with her standard thumb impression and as per the report of the expert, thumb impression on the Will and the standard thumb impression were opined to be affixed by the same person.

Learned State counsel, who is assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the original Will had not been produced by the accused during investigation. Even the register of the deed writer had also not been produced during investigation and was stated to have been lost. Learned State counsel has further submitted that, in fact, wife of the petitioner had got 1/4th share out of the suit property on the basis of sale deed executed by his co-accused. Petitioner is required for custodial interrogation.

In the present case, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the prosecution case, unregistered Will dated 17.3.2012 was a forged document. Petitioner or his co-accused had failed to produce the original Will during investigation. The register maintained by the deed writer has also been stated to be lost. The report placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure P-4 of the finger print expert is from a private expert. The expert has examined the thumb impression of the executant on the photocopy of the Will with her standard thumb impression. Hence, at this stage, no reliance can be placed on the said report. Further it has also been transpired during the course of arguments that co-accused of the petitioner has executed a sale deed in favour of the wife of the petitioner qua 1/4th share out of the suit property. Petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.