CRM-M-36569 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 118 BALJEET SINGH 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 09.12 120-B, 419, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Civil Lines, District Hisar. 2. Chand Goyal’, hereinafter being 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION BALJEET SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Monty Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocates for the complainant. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) 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. 09.12.2025, for the commission of of B, 419, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Civil Lines, District Hisar. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Gyan Chand Goyal’, hereinafter being referred to as “complainant” only. It was 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36569-2026(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 09.07.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocates 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.444 for the commission of offence punishable under Section B, 419, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Gyan referred to as “complainant” only. It was .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocates filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 444 fence punishable under Sections B, 419, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Gyan referred to as “complainant” only. It was GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.10 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36569 stated by the above named complainant that his maternal uncle, namely ‘Khajanchi Lal’ was owner of agricultural land situated in in District Hisar, and that he had appointed the complainant as his attorney, and i executed a general power of attorney in the year 1976. According to complainant although the payment for the purchase of above said land, in the year 1967, was made by the father of the complainant, but the sale deed was got executed in the n property has been always looked after by the complainant being attorney of ‘Khajanchi Lal’. 3. ‘Khajanchi Lal’ passed away, and that after the death of ‘K three power of attorneys were forged by three persons, namely ‘Nihal Singh’ in the year 2009, ‘Subhash Jain’ in the yer 2010 and ‘Jugal Kishore’ in the year 2012. As per complainant all the above forged and fab attorney a part of the estate of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ has been sold by the fraudsters. In view of above, the complainant has sought for action against the persons who were responsible for the execution forged documents. 4. mentioned complaint, firstly the inquiry was conducted and thereafter, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 5. 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 stated by the above named complainant that his maternal uncle, namely ‘Khajanchi Lal’ was owner of agricultural land situated in in District Hisar, and that he had appointed the complainant as his attorney, and i executed a general power of attorney in the year 1976. According to complainant although the payment for the purchase of above said land, in the year 1967, was made by the father of the complainant, but the sale deed was got executed in the name of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ and the above property has been always looked after by the complainant being attorney of ‘Khajanchi Lal’. The complainant further alleged that in the year 1979 ‘Khajanchi Lal’ passed away, and that after the death of ‘K three power of attorneys were forged by three persons, namely ‘Nihal Singh’ in the year 2009, ‘Subhash Jain’ in the yer 2010 and ‘Jugal Kishore’ in the year 2012. As per complainant all the above forged and fabricated documents, and that on the basis of forged power of attorney a part of the estate of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ has been sold by the fraudsters. In view of above, the complainant has sought for action against the persons who were responsible for the execution forged documents. It is the case of the prosecution that in response to above mentioned complaint, firstly the inquiry was conducted and thereafter, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Notice of motion. 2 stated by the above named complainant that his maternal uncle, namely ‘Khajanchi Lal’ was owner of agricultural land situated in in District Hisar, and that he had appointed the complainant as his attorney, and in that regard executed a general power of attorney in the year 1976. According to complainant although the payment for the purchase of above said land, in the year 1967, was made by the father of the complainant, but the sale deed was ame of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ and the above-mentioned property has been always looked after by the complainant being attorney of The complainant further alleged that in the year 1979 ‘Khajanchi Lal’ passed away, and that after the death of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ three power of attorneys were forged by three persons, namely ‘Nihal Singh’ in the year 2009, ‘Subhash Jain’ in the yer 2010 and ‘Jugal Kishore’ in the year 2012. As per complainant all the above-mentioned three documents are ricated documents, and that on the basis of forged power of attorney a part of the estate of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ has been sold by the fraudsters. In view of above, the complainant has sought for action against the persons who were responsible for the execution of above-mentioned It is the case of the prosecution that in response to above mentioned complaint, firstly the inquiry was conducted and thereafter, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. stated by the above named complainant that his maternal uncle, namely ‘Khajanchi Lal’ was owner of agricultural land situated in in District Hisar, n that regard executed a general power of attorney in the year 1976. According to complainant although the payment for the purchase of above said land, in the year 1967, was made by the father of the complainant, but the sale deed was mentioned property has been always looked after by the complainant being attorney of The complainant further alleged that in the year 1979 hajanchi Lal’ three power of attorneys were forged by three persons, namely ‘Nihal Singh’ in the year 2009, ‘Subhash Jain’ in the yer 2010 and ‘Jugal Kishore’ in the mentioned three documents are ricated documents, and that on the basis of forged power of attorney a part of the estate of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ has been sold by the fraudsters. In view of above, the complainant has sought for action against mentioned It is the case of the prosecution that in response to above- mentioned complaint, firstly the inquiry was conducted and thereafter, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.10 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36569 6. behalf of respondent dispensed with. 7. today. The same be taken on record. 8. 9. the petitioner is by the complainant, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that money, whatsoever, has 10. also contended that otherwise also, in the present case the prosecution has been launched at the instance of one person, who has no interest in the property in question, and that legal heirs of have not initiated any prosecution petitioner or anybody else. 11. for the complainant, been cont the petitioner is not correct that he is not the beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transactions. While referring to a Civil Court decree dated 09.09.2017 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant has been filed . The same be taken on record. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner is not a beneficiary of any forged or fake document by the complainant, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that , whatsoever, has been received by the petitioner. In addition to above, the lea also contended that otherwise also, in the present case the prosecution has been launched at the instance of one person, who has no interest in the property in question, and that legal heirs of have not initiated any prosecution (or file petitioner or anybody else. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. been contended by the learned counsel for the complainant the petitioner is not correct that he is not the beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transactions. While referring to a Civil Court decree dated 09.09.2017, in the civil suit titled as ‘Baljeet Singh V/s Nirmala Devi & 3 Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana appears on State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner that of any forged or fake document as alleged by the complainant, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that been received by the petitioner. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that otherwise also, in the present case the prosecution has been launched at the instance of one person, who has no interest in the property in question, and that legal heirs of the real owner of the property or filed any complaint) against the , being assisted by learned counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has for the complainant that this stand of the petitioner is not correct that he is not the beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transactions. While referring to a Civil Court decree dated Baljeet Singh V/s Nirmala Devi & appears on State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant has been filed the petitioner that as alleged by the complainant, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no rned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that otherwise also, in the present case the prosecution has been launched at the instance of one person, who has no interest in the erty against the , being assisted by learned counsel It has stand of the petitioner is not correct that he is not the beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transactions. While referring to a Civil Court decree dated Baljeet Singh V/s Nirmala Devi & GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.10 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36569 Ors.’, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is one of the beneficiary of the abovementioned fraudulent transactions. 12. 13. the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- i. ii. iii. iv. 14. settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for as a matter of granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 Ors.’, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is one of the beneficiary of the abovementioned fraudulent transactions. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a - that in the present case, there are very specific allegations qua the fact that forged and Power of Attorney of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ 1979, was created in the year 2010 in favour of ‘Subhash Jain’; ii. that the petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of the abovementioned transactions abovementioned Power of Attorney, a Civil Court decree has been procured by the petitioner dispute; iii. that allegations in the present case are iv. that in order to find out the ro commission of offence, his custodial interrogation is necessary; 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 granted 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. 4 Ors.’, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is one of the beneficiary of the abovementioned fraudulent The record has been perused carefully. of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a there are very specific and categorical qua the fact that forged and fabricated General Khajanchi Lal’, who died in the year in the year 2010 in favour of ‘Subhash Jain’; is one of the beneficiaries of the abovementioned transactions, as on the strength of abovementioned Power of Attorney, a Civil Court decree has petitioner with regard to property in that allegations in the present case are of serious nature; and that in order to find out the role played by the petitioner in the commission of offence, his custodial interrogation is necessary; As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect, while 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 Ors.’, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is one of the beneficiary of the abovementioned fraudulent of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a and categorical fabricated General , who died in the year in the year 2010 in favour of ‘Subhash Jain’; is one of the beneficiaries of the , as on the strength of abovementioned Power of Attorney, a Civil Court decree has with regard to property in le played by the petitioner in the commission of offence, his custodial interrogation is necessary; As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is while 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.10 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36569 15. 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, that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. 16. case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question 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 justice and may hamper the investigation. 17. Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1025 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 this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 18. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 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, 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 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 justice 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 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 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: 5 , 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 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question 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 in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice 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 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 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:- , 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, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; 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 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 5 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 indulgence of In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.10 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36569 19. custodial interrogation the present case, if such right is den likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway requisite evidence. 20. also the relevant laws, it invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner him the benefit of pre petition being dismissed 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Proc an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in 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 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 exercised. It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial interrogation is a valuable right the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway and the Investigating Agency quisite evidence. Considering the above-discussed facts the relevant laws, it is hereby observed that invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre-arrest bail. Thus, being devoid of merits deserve dismissed, accordingly. 6 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 patory 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 t shall not be out of place to mention here that the right of is a valuable right of the Investigating Agency, and in ied to 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 discussed facts & circumstances, and observed that no ground exists for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner, by according , it is hereby held that the present deserves dismissal. The same is hereby edure 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 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 the right of and in it is may not take a may not be able to collect the and no ground exists for by according present hereby GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.10 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36569 21. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 22. application 09.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 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 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 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 2026.07.10 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document