MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM the submissions made by both the sides, it appears that these three petitioners along with others were shareholders of a private limited company of which shares were sought to be sold. It appears that there was some difference of opinion as to whether these shares should be sold or not. However, there is whether the other share holders whose signatures appear on the agreement, had infact agreed to sell these shares. It may be noted in that respect that these three petitioners have also filed a civil suit in respect of this argument to sell the shares. They have sought an injunction to restrain the defendants (complainants) from interfering with the plying of certain buses which seems to be belonging to the said Private Limited Co. In that case an injunction was granted on 14.2.1998.

(2.) MEANWHILE a photostat copy of the disputed agreement was subjected to opinion of two Handwriting Experts. One expert says that the signatures did not tally with the specimen signatures, while the other expert was of the opinion that the signatures might have been written or forged by one person. The weight and value of such opinion of the Handwriting Expert would be a matter of scrutiny at later stage. It may be noted that during the course of investigation no sample handwriting slips were taken for getting the disputed signatures compared with the specimen signatures of the complainant and the specimen writing of the accused in the same script and manner in which the signatures appeared on the agreement. These signatures were also not compared with the admitted signatures which were made in the past. Petitioners have joined the investigation. In the set of these circumstances, I grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No 147 dated 31.12.1997 under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPC on conditions that in the event of their arrest they shall be released on each of them executing a bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ - to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer/Arresting Officer. Further condition is that they shall report themselves to the Investigating Officer as and when called by intimating them by a previous notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. Petition allowed.