KASHMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kashmir Singh, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.26 dated 14.3.2012 at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana Rural for an offence punishable under sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an eighty years old Nambardar of village Mand Tihara. According to him, he has attested a pedigree table in which Gurnam Singh is shown to have been succeeded by Ajaib Singh. According to him, the petitioner was not aware of the date of death of Gurnam Singh and similarly, he was not in a position to know if Gurnam Singh had executed any Will or not because he had been a resident of a different village. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the alleged pedigree table and that he being in custody for the last about a month, is entitled to be on bail.

(3.) Learned State counsel with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that Gurnam Singh, who was a resident of village Ranjitgarh Bandra died in the year 1999. According to him, the mutation on the basis of which pedigree table was prepared also had a reference of the Will and, therefore, the petitioner had the means to know that the Will could not be executed by Gurnam Singh, who had died in the year 1999. It is further submitted that Gurnam Singh had been visiting village Mand Tihara and that the petitioner clearly knew that Ajaib Singh is not a successor of Gurnam Singh. He has further submitted that despite having knowledge of these facts, he attested the pedigree table and has clearly committed the offence.