Custodial interrogation may be necessary for a complete and proper investigation, and granting interim protection could stifle the investigation at the threshold.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case having FIR No. 211 dated 29.04.2022, registered under Sections 420, 458, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad.

2. The counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the complainant who is aunt of the petitioner and her husband Bhalla Singh during his lifetime executed a will dated 05.08.2020 in favour of the petitioner and after the death of Bhalla Singh the petitioner has filed civil suit against the complainant based on the said will and the copy of the plaint of the civil suit is Annexure P-7 and the said suit is still pending and the validity of the will in question is going to be decided by the civil Court in the said civil suit. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire case is based on documentary evidence and the original will is already taken into its custody by the police from the civil Court and the prosecution has based its case on the basis of the report of FSL, Madhuban which is given by handwriting expert Dr. Kanta Malik whose work and conduct is already under cloud and in this regard the petitioner has also lodged complaint (Annexure P-6) with the Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad. That the said report of handwriting expert is doubtful and that is why the complainant also procured one another report in her favour from some private handwriting expert.

3. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that complainant lodged one complaint against the petitioner with regard to the validity of will dated 05.08.2020, with the police and in the said complaint the matter was compromised and the complainant got recorded her statement that she will accept the decision given by the civil Court where the dispute with regard to the land is pending between both the parties. At that time the complainant also informed the police that the petitioner never threatened to kill her. That on the basis of the aforesaid statement the complaint lodged by the complainant was filed vide Annexure P-4 dated 09.04.2022. The counsel for the petitioner further contends that however thereafter the complainant lodged fresh complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned and on the basis of the same, the FIR in question was registered by the police.

4. The counsel for the petitioner further contends that co-accused Dalbir Singh, the father of the petitioner and Vijay, attesting witness of the will are granted interim bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure P-8) and 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-9). The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed application under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad and in the said bail application the State filed its reply wherein while resisting the bail application the State specifically took plea that if released on bail the petitioner is going to influence the witnesses or may abscond. The counsel for the petitioner further contends that the police is following pick and chose policy as another co-accused Kapil who was specifically named in the FIR, has now been exonerated by the police without assigning any reason. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a respectable citizen and is ready to join the investigation and if granted interim protection, is not going to abscond. So, prayer is made that petitioner be granted anticipatory bail as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required.

5. The present petition is resisted by the State counsel as well as the counsel for the complainant, both of whom have contended that the petitioner is the main beneficiary of the will in question dated 05.08.2020, which has been forged by the petitioner. It has bee