CRM-M-9298 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 209 RAVINDER SHARMA STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. dated 11.06.2025 419, 420, 467, 468, Gobindgarh 2. ‘Kashmir Giri’ alleged by the complainan in the name of son of ‘Rajan Giri’ 9298-2026 (O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION RAVINDER SHARMA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for pre-arrest bail is petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 11.06.2025, for the commission of of 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The abovementioned FIR came into being Kashmir Giri’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was alleged by the complainant that ‘Mittul Gupta’ in the name of son of ‘Rajan Giri’, had entered into number of fake 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9298-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 23.04.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab. arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.139 , for the commission of offence punishable under Section B of Indian Penal Code ion Mandi FIR came into being at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was ul Gupta’, who had created fake firms , had entered into number of fake .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 139 fence punishable under Sections Mandi at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was , who had created fake firms , had entered into number of fake GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9298 transactions, firms for the purpose of claiming GST inputs. the same manner fake funds were created namely ‘Soni Rishi’ firms. As per complainant, the name of firm created in the name of of compla name of ‘Soni Rishi’ was ‘M/s 3. ‘Harsh Gupta’, ‘Ravinder Sharma’ (the petitioner herein) and other associates Aadhaar Card No.8905 got it registered by impersonating hims registration of sale deed appeared before the Sub complainant, affixed on the sale deed. forged the signatures of ‘Soni Rishi’ on the abovementioned sale deed, who at the abovementioned point of time was in custody. While claiming impersonating himself as ‘Soni Rishi’ and executing the sale deed with forged signatures petitioner, the action was sought by the complainant. 4. abovementioned complaint, investigation taken up. 5. 9298-2026 (O&M) 8587 transactions, running into crores of rupees firms for the purpose of claiming GST inputs. the same manner fake funds were created namely ‘Soni Rishi’, who was in custody at the time of creation of firms. As per complainant, the name of firm created in the name of complainant was ‘Ganpati Jewellers’ and the name of firm created in the name of ‘Soni Rishi’ was ‘M/s Neelkanth It was further alleged by the complainant ‘Harsh Gupta’, ‘Ravinder Sharma’ (the petitioner herein) and other associates were influential persons, and that ‘Ravinder Sharma’ Aadhaar Card No.8905-1643-6739 of ‘Soni Rishi’, executed got it registered by impersonating hims registration of sale deed appeared before the Sub complainant, the abovementioned fact stands verified from the photograph affixed on the sale deed. The complainant also alleged that the petitioner had ged the signatures of ‘Soni Rishi’ on the abovementioned sale deed, who at the abovementioned point of time was in custody. While claiming impersonating himself as ‘Soni Rishi’ and executing the sale deed with forged signatures, the abovementioned offence petitioner, the action was sought by the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case investigation taken up. Heard. 2 of rupees, shown in the abovementioned firms for the purpose of claiming GST inputs. According to complainant, in the same manner fake funds were created in the name of another person, , who was in custody at the time of creation of fake firms. As per complainant, the name of firm created in the name of the son ‘Ganpati Jewellers’ and the name of firm created in the Neelkanth Enterprises’. by the complainant that ‘Mittul Gupta’, ‘Harsh Gupta’, ‘Ravinder Sharma’ (the petitioner herein) and other were influential persons, and that ‘Ravinder Sharma’, while using 6739 of ‘Soni Rishi’, executed a sale deed and got it registered by impersonating himself as ‘Soni Rishi’, and for the registration of sale deed appeared before the Sub-Registrar. As per fact stands verified from the photograph The complainant also alleged that the petitioner had ged the signatures of ‘Soni Rishi’ on the abovementioned sale deed, who at the abovementioned point of time was in custody. While claiming that by impersonating himself as ‘Soni Rishi’ and executing the sale deed with offence has been committed by the petitioner, the action was sought by the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to formal FIR of this case has been lodged and the shown in the abovementioned According to complainant, in in the name of another person, fake son ‘Ganpati Jewellers’ and the name of firm created in the that ‘Mittul Gupta’, ‘Harsh Gupta’, ‘Ravinder Sharma’ (the petitioner herein) and other , while using sale deed and , and for the Registrar. As per fact stands verified from the photograph The complainant also alleged that the petitioner had ged the signatures of ‘Soni Rishi’ on the abovementioned sale deed, who that by impersonating himself as ‘Soni Rishi’ and executing the sale deed with has been committed by the It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to lodged and the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9298 6. the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, whatsoever, the allegation contained in the FIR abovementioned offence. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations made by this Court in th cases of ‘Nirbhai Singh & Ors. V/s State of Punjab’ CRM ‘Budh Ram V/s State of Haryana’ 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 352. 7. also contended that and therefore, at the instance of offence punishable under Sections 467/471 IPC registered. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, simply by selling land belonging to another person Sections 420/467/471 IPC. learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Ors. V/s State of Bihar & Anr.’ 8. abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, present case petitioner ‘Soni Rishi’ 9298-2026 (O&M) 8587 It has been contended by learned counsel for the the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, whatsoever, has been committed by the the allegation contained in the FIR does not amount to abovementioned offence. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations made by this Court in th cases of ‘Nirbhai Singh & Ors. V/s State of Punjab’ CRM ‘Budh Ram V/s State of Haryana’ 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 352. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the complainant is stranger and therefore, at the instance of complainant, any FIR for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 467/471 IPC registered. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, simply by selling land belonging to another person cannot be treated as an Sections 420/467/471 IPC. In support of abovementioned arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘ Ors. V/s State of Bihar & Anr.’ 2010(2) Cri.L.J. 2223 The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, present case there are very specific and petitioner, that he indulged in illegal activity of impersonating himself as ‘Soni Rishi’, and execute a sale deed by using Aadhaar Card of ‘Soni Rishi’. 3 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact no offence, petitioner, and that otherwise also, does not amount to commission of abovementioned offence. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations made by this Court in th cases of ‘Nirbhai Singh & Ors. V/s State of Punjab’ CRM-M-6339-2013 and ‘Budh Ram V/s State of Haryana’ 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 352. the learned counsel for the petitioner has stranger to the rights of ‘Soni Rishi’ complainant, any FIR for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 467/471 IPC should not have been registered. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, simply by selling cannot be treated as an offence under In support of abovementioned arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the principles of law laid of India in the case of ‘Md. Ibrahim & 2010(2) Cri.L.J. 2223. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the categorical allegations against the that he indulged in illegal activity of impersonating himself as sale deed by using Aadhaar Card of ‘Soni Rishi’. petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present in fact no offence, , and that otherwise also, commission of abovementioned offence. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations made by this Court in the 2013 and the learned counsel for the petitioner has e rights of ‘Soni Rishi’ complainant, any FIR for the commission of should not have been registered. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, simply by selling the offence under , the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the principles of law laid Md. Ibrahim & The learned State Counsel has controverted the in the categorical allegations against the that he indulged in illegal activity of impersonating himself as sale deed by using Aadhaar Card of ‘Soni Rishi’. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9298 As per learned State Counsel, since at the time of registration o the photograph of the vendor was clicked in the office of Sub stands proved that it was the petitioner forged the signatures in the name of ‘Soni Rishi’. The learned State Counsel has further allegations dig-out the details of entire racket behind the commission of abovementioned offence necessary 9. 10. here that himself as ‘Soni Rishi’ and executed the sale deed of the property to ‘Soni Rishi’. As per allegations contained in the FIR, he had used the Aadhaar Card of ‘Soni Rishi’ and forged abovementioned act of the petitioner, Section 420 read with Sections 467/468/471 of IPC 11. law laid down in the cases of Ibrahim’ are not applicable to the instant case, as in the present case it is not the allegation of the complainant that sold by the petitioner Rather instant case is a case, wherein Soni Rishi’s property has been sold by impersonating himself to be 9298-2026 (O&M) 8587 As per learned State Counsel, since at the time of registration o the photograph of the vendor was clicked in the office of Sub proved that it was the petitioner only forged the signatures in the name of ‘Soni Rishi’. The learned State Counsel has further contended that since there are very specific and categorical allegations, duly supported with reliable out the details of entire racket behind the commission of abovementioned offence, custodial interrogation of the necessary. The record has been perused carefully. In the present case, at the very outset it is relevant to mention here that there are allegations against the petitioner that he impersonated himself as ‘Soni Rishi’ and executed the sale deed of the property to ‘Soni Rishi’. As per allegations contained in the FIR, he had used the Aadhaar Card of ‘Soni Rishi’ and forged abovementioned act of the petitioner, prima facie Section 420 read with Sections 467/468/471 of IPC It shall not be out of place to mention here that law laid down in the cases of ‘Nirbhai Singh’, ‘Budh Ram’, and ‘Md are not applicable to the instant case, as in the present case it is not the allegation of the complainant that the sold by the petitioner, by claiming himself to be the owner of tha Rather instant case is a case, wherein Soni Rishi’s property has been sold by impersonating himself to be the ‘Soni Rishi’. 4 As per learned State Counsel, since at the time of registration of sale deed, the photograph of the vendor was clicked in the office of Sub-Registrar only, who executed the sale deed and forged the signatures in the name of ‘Soni Rishi’. The learned State Counsel contended that since there are very specific and categorical reliable evidence against the petitioner, out the details of entire racket behind the commission of , custodial interrogation of the petitioner is The record has been perused carefully. In the present case, at the very outset it is relevant to mention there are allegations against the petitioner that he impersonated himself as ‘Soni Rishi’ and executed the sale deed of the property belonging to ‘Soni Rishi’. As per allegations contained in the FIR, he had used the Aadhaar Card of ‘Soni Rishi’ and forged his signatures. The prima facie, comes within the ambit of Section 420 read with Sections 467/468/471 of IPC. It shall not be out of place to mention here that the principles of rbhai Singh’, ‘Budh Ram’, and ‘Md are not applicable to the instant case, as in the present case it is not the property someone else has been by claiming himself to be the owner of that property. Rather instant case is a case, wherein Soni Rishi’s property has been sold by the ‘Soni Rishi’. Prima facie, there is allegation f sale deed, Registrar, it , who executed the sale deed and forged the signatures in the name of ‘Soni Rishi’. The learned State Counsel contended that since there are very specific and categorical , to out the details of entire racket behind the commission of petitioner is In the present case, at the very outset it is relevant to mention there are allegations against the petitioner that he impersonated belonging to ‘Soni Rishi’. As per allegations contained in the FIR, he had used the his signatures. The comes within the ambit of the principles of rbhai Singh’, ‘Budh Ram’, and ‘Md are not applicable to the instant case, as in the present case it is not has been t property. Rather instant case is a case, wherein Soni Rishi’s property has been sold by , there is allegation GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9298 that the petitioner had forged the signatures of ‘Soni Rishi’ on the sale deed, and thus, 12. settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be g as a matter of granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 13. the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; anticipatory bail is a rule. 14. case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts an According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. 15. Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave 9298-2026 (O&M) 8587 that the petitioner had forged the signatures of ‘Soni Rishi’ on the sale deed, s, it can’t be said that no offence is made out As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be g as a matter of routine. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. With regard to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts an According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of ce and may hamper the investigation. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave 5 that the petitioner had forged the signatures of ‘Soni Rishi’ on the sale deed, it can’t be said that no offence is made out. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect, while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of ce and may hamper the investigation. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave that the petitioner had forged the signatures of ‘Soni Rishi’ on the sale deed, As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is while ranted . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of d circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9298 Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a perso 16. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 17. interrogation present case, if such right is den to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway requisite evidence. 9298-2026 (O&M) 8587 Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble reme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and m exceptional cases only. (ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (iii) Where a legitimate case for th police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial interrogation is a valuable right of the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway and the Investigating Agency requisite evidence. 6 Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble reme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of n accused of grave offence. In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial the Investigating Agency, and in the the Investigating Agency, it is likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a and the Investigating Agency may not be able to collect the Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble reme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of ust be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the e remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial and in the it is likely may not take a may not be able to collect the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9298 18. been allegedly the role played by various other persons involved in the commission of abovemention petitioner is is not entitled for the benefit of pre 19. present case and the relevant laws, it invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner the benefit of pre is devoid of merits accordingly 20. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 21. application 23.04.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 9298-2026 (O&M) 8587 Taking into consideration the gravity of allegedly committed by the petitioner the role played by various other persons involved in the commission of abovementioned offence of fraud and forgery petitioner is required, it is hereby held that is not entitled for the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Considering the above-discussed facts and circumstances of the present case and the relevant laws, it is observed that invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Thus, it is hereby held is devoid of merits deserves dismissal accordingly. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. .2026 (SURYA PA Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 7 Taking into consideration the gravity of offence, which has committed by the petitioner, coupled with the fact that to fix the role played by various other persons involved in the commission of ed offence of fraud and forgery custodial interrogation of the required, it is hereby held that in the present case the petitioner arrest bail. discussed facts and circumstances of the is observed that no ground exists for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner, by according it is hereby held that the present petition dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No offence, which has to fix the role played by various other persons involved in the commission of custodial interrogation of the the petitioner discussed facts and circumstances of the exists for by according petition dismissed, It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.24 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document