Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket refuses pre-arrest bail to lambardar in impersonation case

Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket refuses pre-arrest bail to lambardar in impersonation case



Tribune Information Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, Could 12

The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket has made it clear {that a} lambardar, who attests a sale deed wherein the unique proprietor has been allegedly impersonated, doesn’t deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. His custodial interrogation was important to carry forth the modus operandi of the accused.

Justice Vikas Bahl asserted a lambardar was appointed by the District Collector underneath the Punjab Land Income Guidelines. When a lambardar attested a doc or stood as a witness on the time of any doc’s registration, the federal government places of work relied upon his attestation and identification.

Justice Bahl added the individuals holding positions within the authorities places of work usually didn’t personally know the events executing the paperwork and strongly relied upon a lambardar’s attestation for the identification of the events.

“Within the current case, it’s on account of attestation of the current petitioner, who was a lambardar, that the sale deed in query had been received registered by the co-accused by means of committing a fraud towards the state authorities and thus, the petitioner doesn’t deserve the concession of anticipatory bail,” Justice Bahl asserted.

The matter was delivered to Justice Bahl’s discover after the lambardar filed anticipatory bail plea in an FIR dated January 24 registered for dishonest, forgery and different offences underneath Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC at Sujanpur police station in Pathankot.

The counsel for the State and for the complainant vehemently opposed the petition, whereas submitting the petitioner was a lambardar, whose obligation was to attest paperwork and determine the individuals executing the identical. Improper identification may mislead the authorities in registering the sale deeds and so on.

Justice Bahl asserted the petitioner was undisputedly a lambardar and had attested the sale deed dated February 1, 2016, relating to which it was alleged that “the unique proprietor had been impersonated”. The sale deed was the subject material of the current FIR. The complainant was admittedly the proprietor of the property sought to be offered by the sale deed. It was alleged that the complainant was fraudulently proven to have offered the property. However one other individual had appeared and introduced herself because the complainant-owner on the time of the deed’s registration.

Within the sale deed, the complainant was proven to be the vendor, whereas she had allegedly by no means appeared earlier than the sub-registrar. “The custodial interrogation of the petitioner can be essential to carry forth the modus operandi adopted by the accused in fee of the offences dedicated whereas registering the sale deed and in addition to seek out out as to who have been the opposite individuals concerned within the fraudulent act,” Justice Bahl concluded.





Supply hyperlink

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.

%d bloggers like this: