CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 108 Dalvir Dass @ Ashok State of Punjab Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 1 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. seeking grant of anticipatory/pre 2023 in FIR No. under Sections Station Barnala, District Barnala. 2. a complaint s Barnala alleging had produced before by the office of the Block Development and Panchayat The said communication dated 12.08.2025 was allegedly addressed to the Incharge, Police Post Handiaya, regarding FIR No.81 dated 05.06.2025 registered against the petitioner in connection with encroachment and damage to a public passage. -27357-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dalvir Dass @ Ashok V/s State of Punjab Date of decision: 15.07.2026 Uploading : 15.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Gurvesh Singh Khokhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.0072 dated 26.04.2026 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) Barnala, District Barnala. As per the prosecution case, a complaint submitted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Barnala alleging therein that the petitioner had produced before the Court a forged communication purportedly issued by the office of the Block Development and Panchayat The said communication dated 12.08.2025 was allegedly addressed to the Incharge, Police Post Handiaya, regarding FIR No.81 dated 05.06.2025 registered against the petitioner in connection with encroachment and damage to a public passage. It has been further 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27357-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Gurvesh Singh Khokhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, registered for offences punishable , 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 at Police As per the prosecution case, the FIR in question emanates from ubmitted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, that the petitioner namely Dalvir Dass alias Ashok, Court a forged communication purportedly issued by the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Barnala. The said communication dated 12.08.2025 was allegedly addressed to the Incharge, Police Post Handiaya, regarding FIR No.81 dated 05.06.2025 registered against the petitioner in connection with encroachment and has been further alleged that the said letter Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, registered for offences punishable BNS, 2023 at Police emanates from ubmitted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, namely Dalvir Dass alias Ashok, Court a forged communication purportedly issued Officer, Barnala. The said communication dated 12.08.2025 was allegedly addressed to the Incharge, Police Post Handiaya, regarding FIR No.81 dated 05.06.2025 registered against the petitioner in connection with encroachment and alleged that the said letter AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27357-2026 2 was placed on record by the petitioner during the course of proceedings arising out of the earlier FIR in order to create an impression that the encroachment had been removed and no further action was warranted against him. Furthermore, upon verification conducted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Barnala, it had surfaced that no such communication had ever been issued from the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. The concerned office records, dispatch registers and official files were examined and no entry regarding issuance of the aforesaid communication was found. Statements of the concerned officials, including the officer who allegedly signed the communication, were also obtained. The inquiry allegedly concluded that the document relied upon by the petitioner before this Court was fabricated and forged. On these set of allegation, the FIR in question came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and the same has been registered on account of the previous litigation between the parties. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court with regard to FIR No.81 dated 05.06.2025 and has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail after satisfying the conditions imposed by the Court. It has been further contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR are highly improbable and do not disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the communication dated 12.08.2025, which is the basis of the instant FIR, remained available to all the concerned authorities for a considerable period of time and no criminal proceedings were initiated for several months which render the prosecution story highly doubtful. Furthermore, the departmental inquiry relied upon by the prosecution is AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27357-2026 3 unilateral in nature and the findings recorded therein cannot be treated as conclusive proof of forgery, particularly when the authenticity of the disputed document are matters requiring evidence and adjudication during the course of trial. Learned counsel has emphasized that the complainant himself was placed under suspension shortly before the registration of the present FIR which casting doubt on the credibility of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It has been further contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident of District Barnala, has deep roots in society and there is no possibility of his absconding or evading the process of law. Moreover, there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from him. There is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these 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. Referring to the reply dated 22.05.2026 by way of affidavit of Saviur Singh, Sub Division Barnala, District Barnala, learned State counsel has submitted that the allegations relate to preparation and use of a forged official document before a Court and the investigation conducted by the departmental authorities revealed that no such letter has ever been issued from the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. The relevant part of the said status report reads thus: “21. ROLE OF THE PRESENT PETITIONER DALVIR DASS @ ASHOK: That present petitioner Dalvir Dass @ Ashok, seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid FIR-81-2025 (P-4), had approached this Hon'ble Court vide petition CRM-M-33238-2025, and during the pendency of the said petition, present petitioner Dalvir Dass @ Ashok, with a calculated and dishonest intent, filed a miscellaneous application bearing No.CRM- AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27357-2026 4 43944-2025, and deliberately placed on record a forged and fabricated letter dated:12.08.2025 (P-2), purportedly issued by the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO), Barnala. Present petitioner Dalvir Dass @ Ashok, by placing reliance on the said forged letter dated:12.08.2025 (P-2), successfully misled this Hon'ble Court into believing that the matter had been amicably resolved and thereby secured the relief of anticipatory bail vide order dated:07.04.2026 (P-5) passed in CRM- M-33238-2025. Subsequently, upon an inquiry conducted by the District Development and Panchayat Officer (DDPO), Barnala, based on a complaint received from the Gram Panchayat, it was unequivocally established that the said letter dated: 12.08.2025 (P-2) was never issued by the office of the BDPO, Barnala. The official records, including the dispatch and receipt registers of the BDPO office, contain no entry of any such letter. Furthermore, a written statement was obtained from Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, the then Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Barnala (now posted at Dhuri, District Sangrur), on 02.04.2026, wherein he categorically denied having issued or signed any such letter during his tenure at Barnala. This conclusively proves that the letter (P-2) was a forged and fabricated document, created by present petitioner Dalvir Dass @ Ashok with the sole objective of deceiving this Hon'ble Court and obstructing the course of justice. From the perusal of material collected by police, including the abovesaid Letter (R-1), the involvement of present petitioner Dalvir Dass @ Ashok in the crime of forgery, fabrication etc. is established. ANTECEDENTS OF PRESENT PETITIONER DALVIR DASS @ASHOK Except the present case/FIR (P-1), there is following FIR registered against the present petitioner Dalvir Dass @ Ashok:- FIR No.81 dated: 05.06.2025 (P-4), under Section 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 registered at Police Station Barnala” Learned State counsel has further submitted that the forgery has been allegedly committed in order to mislead the judicial proceedings and securing favourable orders from the Court. It has been contended that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the source, preparation and execution of AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27357-2026 5 the forged document and to identify other persons involved in the conspiracy. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed 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 case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he allegedly prepared/procured a forged communication purportedly issued from the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Barnala and produced the same before the Court during the course of proceedings arising out of FIR No.81 dated 05.06.2025. As per the allegations, the said document was produced in order to create a false impression that the encroachment in question has already been removed and the petitioner has complied with the directions issued by the authorities. The allegations against the petitioner are specific in nature and prima facie suggest his active involvement in the use of a forged official document for obtaining a favourable order from the Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, any attempt to fabricate the official documents and produced before a Court strikes at the very foundation of the administration of justice. Such allegations, if established, would have serious ramifications and cannot be viewed lightly. The plea raised by the petitioner with regard to political rivalry, delay in lodging the complaint or the suspension of the complainant, are matters which would require detailed appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated while considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail. The role attributed to the petitioner is direct and specific. As per the prosecution, the forged document has been produced by the petitioner himself during the course of proceedings arising AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27357-2026 6 out an earlier FIR in order to influence the judicial proceedings. The allegations, therefore, cannot be said to be vague or omnibus. The stand of the investigating agency before this Court is that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in order to ascertain the person(s) involved in the preparation of the alleged document in question, the source of the alleged signatures and the circumstances under which it was placed before the Court. 7. While adjudicating the plea for grant of bail, a meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors is necessary. The paramount factor is the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offence. Moreover, 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. 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. 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 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Hon'ble 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 AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-27357-2026 7 a case like this, effective interrogation of a 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 task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” 8. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the offence and the requirement of the custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. 9. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: (i) The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. (ii) Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. (iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE July 15, 2026 Ajay Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document