JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J. (Oral):- Crl. M. No.21273 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl. M. No. M-10298 of 2012 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.62, dated 22.9.2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Talwandi Chaudhrian, Distrist Kapurthala. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. 3. Brief allegations against petitioners are that she is step mother of complainant. She is also having son from her previous husband, namely, Gurvinder Singh. Father of complainant, i.e, husband of present petitioner was missing from the house. Hence, taking benefit of the said fact, petitioner alongwith co-accused in connivance with co-accused got forged death certificate of Jarnail Singh, father of complainant and used the said death certificate for getting mutation of land belonging to Jarnail Singh sanctioned in her favour and another co-accused. Thereafter, an agreement to sell was executed regarding the said land by petitioner and other accused and sale deed was also executed regarding the said land. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner accused that she is a lady and that police is proceeding against her and not against the other co-accused. It is also contended that she being an illiterate lady her thumb impressions were obtained by the other persons and nothing was paid to her. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, [2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 4190] : 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 540. 5. However, there are serious allegations against petitioner accused. Death certificate of her husband was forged. She is beneficiary of the same. Land belonging to her husband was mutated in her favour and later on sale deed of her share was also executed. Hence, custodial interrogation of petitioner-accused is necessary. 5. However, there are serious allegations against petitioner accused. Death certificate of her husband was forged. She is beneficiary of the same. Land belonging to her husband was mutated in her favour and later on sale deed of her share was also executed. Hence, custodial interrogation of petitioner-accused is necessary. Reliance is placed upon State represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR (SC) 3806, wherein it has been held as under: “We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” 6. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Charanjjit Kaur for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. --------------------