CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----37155 37155 37155 37155 116 116 116 116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Mandeep State of Haryana Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present: SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Criminal Procedure, 1973 pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner 06.05.2026, registered for the Indian Penal Code, 1860 District Jind. 2. complainant, Naib Tehsildar, Adampur, allege herein), Roshni Devi, Sunil Kumari and Kamlesh, had committed the offences in question. The complainant stated that he remained posted as Naib Tehsildar, Jind, from December 2021 to 08.03.2024. During the said period, it came to notice that the accused persons had allegedly manipulated the records of the Tehsil and, by forging and fabricating the revenue record, succeeded in getting 37155 37155 37155 37155----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----37155 37155 37155 37155----2026 2026 2026 2026 versus Haryana Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: July 10 July 10 July 10 July 10, , , , 2026 2026 2026 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July July July July 11114444, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. registered for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), at Police Station District Jind. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that complainant, Naib Tehsildar, Adampur, allege , Roshni Devi, Sunil Kumari and Kamlesh, had committed the offences in question. The complainant stated that he remained posted as Naib Tehsildar, Jind, from December 2021 to 08.03.2024. During the said period, it came to notice that the accused persons had allegedly manipulated the records of the Tehsil and, by forging and fabricating the revenue record, succeeded in getting 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Cr. P.C.’) for grant of in case bearing FIR No.85 dated offences punishable under Section 420 of the at Police Station Civil Line Jind, The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the complainant, Naib Tehsildar, Adampur, alleged that Mandeep (petitioner , Roshni Devi, Sunil Kumari and Kamlesh, had committed the offences in question. The complainant stated that he remained posted as Naib Tehsildar, Jind, from December 2021 to 08.03.2024. During the said period, it came to his notice that the accused persons had allegedly manipulated the records of the Tehsil and, by forging and fabricating the revenue record, succeeded in getting 1111 ....Petitioner Code of ’) for grant of dated 420 of the Civil Line Jind, the petitioner , Roshni Devi, Sunil Kumari and Kamlesh, had committed the offences in question. The complainant stated that he remained posted as Naib Tehsildar, his notice that the accused persons had allegedly manipulated the records of the Tehsil and, by forging and fabricating the revenue record, succeeded in getting MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.14 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----37155 37155 37155 37155----2026 2026 2026 2026 2222 Sale Deed No.1308 dated 30.05.2023 registered. It was further alleged that the accused also forged and fabricated the records relating to the Property ID and the No Dues Certificate maintained by the Municipal Committee, Jind. The complainant further asserted that Mandeep (petitioner herein) was not the owner of the land in question, having already alienated his share therein. Nevertheless, by allegedly manipulating the revenue record, he procured an online appointment and got the aforesaid sale deed registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR in connivance with one Jitender, who allegedly used to deceive the public by inducing them to invest in crypto-currency. It has been submitted that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further argued that the dispute, if any, is essentially civil in nature and has been given a criminal colour solely with an intent to harass the petitioner and unnecessarily involve him in the present criminal proceedings. It has also been submitted that the prosecution case is primarily based on documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of the investigating agency, and, therefore, there is no likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel has further pointed out that there is an unexplained delay of nearly three years in the registration of the present FIR, which came to be lodged on 06.05.2026, whereas, the sale deed in question was allegedly executed and registered on 30.05.2023. 3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.14 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----37155 37155 37155 37155----2026 2026 2026 2026 3333 is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It has been argued by learned State counsel that the petitioner, in actual, has no land whatsoever in his favour, yet, by forging and fabricating the revenue record, he managed to get the sale deed in question registered and has, thus, dishonestly cheated the revenue officials and innocent vendees. 4.1. Learned State counsel has further asserted that considering the seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the modus operandi and broader conspiracy. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 6. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious. A perusal of the material on record along with the impugned order, whereby, anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been declined by the Court below, prima facie, shows that despite not being the owner of any land whatsoever, the petitioner manipulated and forged the revenue record so as to depict himself as the owner of 494 square yards of land. It has been observed by the Court below that, on the strength of the said forged and fabricated revenue record, the petitioner procured an online appointment and got the sale MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.14 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----37155 37155 37155 37155----2026 2026 2026 2026 4444 deed executed in favour of three women, thereby dishonestly cheating both the vendees as well as the revenue authorities. The nature and gravity of the allegations necessitated custodial interrogation of the petitioner to enable the investigating agency to ascertain the manner in which the revenue record, being a sacrosanct public document, was manipulated through the online system and to identify the revenue officials, if any, who may have connived with the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. 6.1. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. 7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1039] 1039] 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ““““6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented 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 a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.14 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----37155 37155 37155 37155----2026 2026 2026 2026 5555 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.”””” 8. In view of the seriousness and specific allegations, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. 9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 10 July 10 July 10 July 10, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.14 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment