M.L.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) FACTS have been given in sufficient detail in Crl. Misc. No. 25806-M of 2001 in which Siri Niwas co-accused is the petitioner who has claimed anticipatory bail in the same case (FIR No. 181 dated 26.6.2001 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC at PS City Jagadhari).
(2.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Smt. Chandra Wati executed will dated 31.5.91 in favour of Shri Niwas which was a genuine will. It was submitted that Shri Ajay Mohan Paliwal, Finger Print Expert compared the purported signatures of Smt. Chandra Wati appearing on will dated 31.5.91 with those appearing on will dated 11.5.91 and her admitted signatures appearing on the plaint and wakalatnama and civil suit Smt. Chandra Wati v. Siri Niwas filed in the court of Shri C.B. Jaglian, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhari and found that the purported signatures of Smt. Chandra Wati appearing on will dated 31.5.91 tallied with her admitted signatures on the plaint and wakalatnama of civil suit Smt. Chandra Wati v. Siri Niwas filled in the court of Shri C.B. Jaglian, Additional Senior Sub judge, Jagadhri. He found that the admitted signatures of Smt. Chandra Wati appearing on the plaint and wakalatnama of civil suit Smt. Chandra Wati v. Siri Niwas filed in the court of Shri C.B. Jaglian, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhari did not tally with her purported signatures on will dated 11.5.91. It was submitted that there are two reports of different finger print experts; one supporting Siri Niwas and the other supporting Lakhmi Chand. It was submitted that the science of handwriting is not an exact science and therefore, there can be no tilt in favour of Lakhmi Chand so as to deny anticipatory bail to Siri Niwas. It was submitted that the opinion of Shri N.K. Jain, Finger Print Expert, Ambala could not form the basis of declining anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Shri G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that will dated 31.5.91 being set up by Siri Niwas was false, forged and fabricated as if Smt. Chandra Wati had executed any will in favour of Siri Niwas on 31.5.91, he would have pleaded this fact in suit for permanent injunction titled Siri Niwas v. Wasdev Rattan Sharma and Smt. Bimla Devi in para 1 of the plaint of that suit, Siri Niwas had pleaded that he along with the heirs of his mother Smt. Chandra Wati is co-owner with defendant Smt. Bimla Devi in the lead measuring 29 kanal 1 marla in which Smt. Bimla Devi has got 1/2 share. It was submitted that he filed that suit on 12.3.2001. It was submitted that if will dated 31.5.91 had been in existence, he would have pleaded that he and Smt. Bimla Devi had equal share in land measuring 29 kanal 1 marla and that he would not have pleaded that he along with the heirs of his mother Smt. Chandra Wati is co-owner with Smt. Bimla Devi in land measuring 29 Kanal 1 marla in which Smt. Bimla Devi has 1/2 share. It was submitted that in the application for partition filed by Smt. Bimla Devi, he filed written statement on 13.1.97. In that written statement also, he pleaded that in the share of Smt. Chandra Wati her heirs were owners. He did not plead in that application for partition that he had 1/2 share. It was submitted that from this fact only conclusion that should be drawn is that Siri Niwas had no will in his favour dated 31.5.91 said to have been executed by his mother Smt. Chandra Wati and that he forged that will afterwards in league with the attending witnesses of the will named Ravi Kumar and Sant Kumar with a view to usurp the entire 1/2 share of this land which is a valuable land situated in the urban area of Jagadhari. It was submitted that Ravi Kumar nd Sant Kumar should not be allowed anticipatory bail. It was submitted that their custodial interrogation is necessary with a view to bring to the fore how this forgery took place. It was submitted that without custodial interrogation, the truth will remain in obscurity and will remain shrouded in mystery. It was submitted that it is custodial interrogation that will bring truth to the fore. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to State represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 268 where it was held that "custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is on anticipatory bail. In a case like this, interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in getting the useful information". He drew my attention to Chawli v. State of Haryana 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 851 where it was held that accused must make out a special case for getting anticipatory bail. Power of anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional cases and subject to limitations of Section 437 Cr.P.C. in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bimal Krishna Kundu, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 462, anticipatory bail allowed to the accused was cancelled. Allegation against the accused was that he was running printing press and was leaking question papers of Public Service Commission. It was felt that offence involved serious conspiracy affecting career of millions of students and, therefore, the anticipatory bail allowed to him was cancelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) IN the case in hand, there are two conflicting reports of the finger print experts; one showing that will dated 31.5.91 was genuine and will dated 11.5.91 was forged; and the other showing that will dated 31.5.91 was forged and the will dated 11.5.91 was genuine. Faced with this position, learned AAG, Haryana assisted by Shri Dhuriwala submitted that Shri Ajay Mohan Paliwal, Finger Print and Hand Writing Expert belongs to Muzaffar Nagar (UP) where Siri Niwas is married and that his opinion should not be given weight because it is biased.;