Dismissed

Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2012CRM-M/5336/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail in a cheating and forgery case regarding a disputed will. The judge denied bail, holding that the testator was in the UK on the relevant date and the petitioner, being a beneficiary and attesting witness, required trial to determine his liability.

What did the court decide?

The petition for pre-arrest bail is dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail.

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-5336 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

**Crl. Misc. No. M-5336 of 2012 Date of Decision: 02.04.2012 *****

Tarsem Singh

.. Petitioner

VS.

State of Punjab

.. Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present:Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

**Mr. A.S. Rai, DAG Punjab. *****

¶13

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶14

Tarsem Singh, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 44 dated 11.9.2011 at Police Station Jhander, Tehsil and District Amritsar for an offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

¶15

It is a case where will of Puran Singh in favour of Darshan Kaur, his wife dated 20.7.1995 is claimed to be a forged document.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Puran Singh as well as his wife Darshan Kaur had died and now out of their five daughters, three are challenging the will while two are defending it. He has further submitted that though the will was not registered in the life time of Puran Singh, yet it was got registered under the provisions of section 40 of the Registration Act, 1908 on 29.4.2000. He has submitted that the will has not

¶17

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-5336 of 2012

¶19

been challenged for more than 15 years. He has further submitted that the question whether this will was executed by Puran Singh or not, could be decided by trial court after taking evidence and as the case is based on documentary evidence, the petitioner who is an attesting witness of the will, deserves bail.

¶20

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the deceased Puran Singh was having a British passport. According to him, he was not in India on 20.7.1995 and therefore, the question of execution of the will by him in India on that day does not arise. He has submitted that the petitioner is not only an attesting witness of the will but a beneficiary as well. He has submitted that he has got some of the property of Puran Singh transferred to him from his wife Darshan Kaur.

¶21

It is true that the moot point at the trial would be as to whether the alleged testator of the will was in India on 20.7.1995 and had executed the will in question or not. However, the fact that would remain is that Puran Singh was holding the British passport and as per the entries in the same, he was not visiting India on 20.7.1995. The petitioner is not only an attesting witness of the document, but he has derived benefit from the will also. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.

¶22

April 02,2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) Jiten JUDGE

Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Singh etc. Vs Haryana State etc.

Prakash Singh Vs Labour Court Patiala and Ors.

Charanjit Singh Vs Labour Court, Patiala and Ors.

Jagjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sarabjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.