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

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 12

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a lambardar, who attests a sale deed in which the original owner has been allegedly impersonated, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. His custodial interrogation was essential to bring forth the modus operandi of the accused.

Justice Vikas Bahl asserted a lambardar was appointed by the District Collector under the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. When a lambardar attested a document or stood as a witness at the time of any document’s registration, the government offices relied upon his attestation and identification.

Justice Bahl added the persons holding positions in the government offices generally did not personally know the parties executing the documents and strongly relied upon a lambardar’s attestation for the identification of the parties.

“In the present case, it is on account of attestation of the present petitioner, who was a lambardar, that the sale deed in question had been got registered by the co-accused by way of committing a fraud against the state authorities and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail,” Justice Bahl asserted.

The matter was brought to Justice Bahl’s notice after the lambardar filed anticipatory bail plea in an FIR dated January 24 registered for cheating, forgery and other offences under 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, while submitting the petitioner was a lambardar, whose duty was to attest documents and identify the persons executing the same. Wrong identification could mislead the authorities in registering the sale deeds etc.

Justice Bahl asserted the petitioner was undisputedly a lambardar and had attested the sale deed dated February 1, 2016, regarding which it was alleged that “the original owner had been impersonated”. The sale deed was the subject matter of the present FIR. The complainant was admittedly the owner of the property sought to be sold by the sale deed. It was alleged that the complainant was fraudulently shown to have sold the property. But another person had appeared and presented herself as the complainant-owner at the time of the deed’s registration.

In the sale deed, the complainant was shown to be the seller, whereas she had allegedly never appeared before the sub-registrar. “The custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary to bring forth the modus operandi followed by the accused in commission of the offences committed while registering the sale deed and also to find out as to who were the other persons involved in the fraudulent act,” Justice Bahl concluded.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.