Ram Sarup vs Jog Dhian

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Jog Dhianrespondent filed a complaint under Sections 464/465/467/468/471/506 IPC against Ram Sarup Shiv Kumar, Mangat Ram, Tej Pal, Netar Pal and Smt. Raj Kumari & Jethu Rampetitioners. The matrix of the case is that the accused Ram Sarup and others had fabricated a Will alleged to have been executed by their maternal grandfather Ram Lakha on Sept. 26, 1977. They also got a saledeed executed on Oct. 8, 1998 in respect of four kanals of his land out of eight acres of land owned by him as Ram Lakha was owner in possession of the land as described in complaint Annexure P1. After the death of Ram Lakha on Nov. 28, 1997, Krishna Devi, mother of the complainant, had inherited the properties left behind by Ram Lakha. Krishna Devi also died on Sept. 14, 1998 leaving behind the complainant as well as other children of Krishna Devi.

In respect of the land measuring 8 acres, a decree from Civil Court was obtained by the accused on Sept. 19, 1984 and also got mutation sanctioned in their favour. In fact, Ram Lakha never appeared in the suit Shiv Kumar v. Raj Kumar. In this way, the accused had fabricated the Will, fraudulently obtained the decree and on the basis of wrong mutations, they are claiming themselves to be the owners. Petitioners have, therefore, applied for anticipatory bail by way of filing this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Krishna Devi during her lifetime, never objected to the execution of the Will and there is considerable delay in filing of the complaint. The report of the document expert that the disputed thumb impression appearing on the Will are not of Ram Lakha, is a matter to be looked into at the trial because the expert has given onesided opinion. In other words, the Revenue Authorities, considering the factum of the Will etc. had entered the mutation in their favour. Therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

It is too early to conclude whether the Will in question is forged or not. This matter is to be considered by the trial Court after the parties are afforded opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. Therefore, considering the fact that civil and criminal litigation is already going on between the parties, it is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

It is, therefore, ordered that on the appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court on or before 5.11.99 (Nov. 5th, 1999) they shall be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of trial Court.