MOOLCHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first petition has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.604 dtd. 31/12/2024 registered under Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station City Palwal, District Palwal.

(2.) FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint sent by Tehsildar, Palwal to the Superintendent of Police, Palwal. The same reads thus:-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a beneficiary of the transaction in question. It is contended that the petitioner had merely acted as an attesting witness to the Conveyance Deed No. 10109 dtd. 28/12/2013 and had no role whatsoever in the execution of the document or deriving benefit arising therefrom. It is further submitted that the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the said conveyance deed stood cancelled prior to the registration of the FIR. Therefore no loss have occasioned as a consequence of the said conveyance deed. It is also submitted that it was the principal accused, namely Amit and Lalit, who had impersonated their identity and procured the conveyance deed in their own favour. Counsel contends that the said co-accused/Lalit was arrested and has since been enlarged on regular bail vide order dtd. 18/11/2025 passed by this Court in CRM-M-21303-2025 titled Lalit v. State of Haryana. He submits that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and hence, his custodial interrogation is wholly unwarranted.