SURESH RANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE in this case was issued primarily on the basis of an affidavit filed by the petitioner to show that he had returned a sum of Rs.12.00 lacs paid to him by one Sukhdev Singh. State counsel has referred and drawn my attention to the details and averments made in the complaint filed by the Naib Tehsildar. This is a case, where one Kanta Devi along with some other persons had appeared before Naib Tehsildar to register a power of attorney. On the basis of the documents produced, the power of attorney was registered. This power of attorney was used to execute a sale deed. Later, it transpired that GPA was got executed by impersonating the actual Smt. Kanta Devi. This fact revealed when another lady appeared and claimed that she was in fact Smt. Kanta Devi. While this all was going on, yet another lady appeared on the scene as third Smt. Crl. Misc. No. M- 1085 of 2012(O&M) -2- Kanta Devi. She provided proof of being owner of the land in question.

(2.) IT is noticed that both Kanta Devi, who had initially appeared before the Naib Tehsildar were making an attempt to impersonate and on the basis of forged and fictitious documents produced before the Naib Tehsildar got even the GPA made. The petitioner along with Sukhdev Singh are alleged to have connived with the ladies, who have impersonated Smt. Kanta Devi. The facts in this case would clearly show that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and the case would need a thorough probe.