CRM-M-3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 107 ARUN DHAWAN @MOHAN LAL 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. 16.05.2026 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ Registration Act 2. ‘Harbhajan Singh’, stated by the above 38411-2026(O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION ARUN DHAWAN @MOHAN LAL VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sethi, Advocate Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant. 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. 16.05.2026, for the commission of of 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ Registration Act, Police Station Civil Lines The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of Harbhajan Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38411-2026(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 16.07.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the complainant. 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.91 dated commission of offence punishable under Section 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Section 82 of Civil Lines, District Amritsar. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was named complainant that he was a co-sharer, to the extent .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated fence punishable under Sections Bharatiya Nyaya and Section 82 of The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was to the extent GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3 of 1/3rd Ghanuppur, Amritsar’ abovementioned plot belong executed a Power of Attorney in favour of complaina subsequently cancelled 3. petitioner herein) signatory to the deed of cancellation of Power of Attorney. The complainant further alleged that by taking advantage of differences between the petitioner and his father, in connivance executed the sale deed in favour of ‘Rajesh Dhawan’ by impersonating ‘Yogesh Dhawan @Billa’ as ‘Jagdish Raj’ (the While claiming that his father same nor culprit was sought by the complainant. 4. statement 5. 6. on behalf of respondent hereby dispensed with. 7. today. The same be taken on record. 38411-2026(O&M) 8587 in Plot No.70 ad-measuring 190 sq. yds. situated at ‘Kala Ghanuppur, Amritsar’. As per complainant, remaining 2/3 abovementioned plot belonged to his father, and that his father had earlier executed a Power of Attorney in favour of complaina subsequently cancelled. The complainant further alleged that ‘Arun Dhawan’ (the petitioner herein) was aware of the abovementioned development, being signatory to the deed of cancellation of Power of Attorney. The complainant alleged that by taking advantage of differences between the petitioner and his father, in connivance with other co executed the sale deed in favour of ‘Rajesh Dhawan’ by impersonating ‘Yogesh Dhawan @Billa’ as ‘Jagdish Raj’ (the While claiming that his father neither executed the sale deed, nor signed appeared before the Registering Authority, the action against the culprit was sought by the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Notice of motion. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. Power of Attorney on behalf of complainant has been filed . The same be taken on record. 2 measuring 190 sq. yds. situated at ‘Kala . As per complainant, remaining 2/3rd share of to his father, and that his father had earlier executed a Power of Attorney in favour of complainant, which w The complainant further alleged that ‘Arun Dhawan’ (the was aware of the abovementioned development, being signatory to the deed of cancellation of Power of Attorney. The complainant alleged that by taking advantage of differences between the petitioner with other co-accused, the petitioner got executed the sale deed in favour of ‘Rajesh Dhawan’ by impersonating ‘Yogesh Dhawan @Billa’ as ‘Jagdish Raj’ (the father of complainant). neither executed the sale deed, nor signed appeared before the Registering Authority, the action against the f the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned , formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears State. Hence service of notice upon the State is Power of Attorney on behalf of complainant has been filed measuring 190 sq. yds. situated at ‘Kala the to his father, and that his father had earlier was The complainant further alleged that ‘Arun Dhawan’ (the was aware of the abovementioned development, being signatory to the deed of cancellation of Power of Attorney. The complainant alleged that by taking advantage of differences between the petitioner accused, the petitioner got executed the sale deed in favour of ‘Rajesh Dhawan’ by impersonating father of complainant). neither executed the sale deed, nor signed the appeared before the Registering Authority, the action against the mentioned , formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. appears State. Hence service of notice upon the State is Power of Attorney on behalf of complainant has been filed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3 8. 9. the petitioner case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, filed by a person, who has no right, t disputed property It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Raj’, the owner of the property, in his lifetime had sworn stated before the Inquiry Officer that the sale deed in question was signed by him. 10. counsel for the petitioner that in his lifetime, ‘Jagdish Raj’ suit again been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that sale deed have not been got compared Expert by the Investigating Officer prosecution is not sustainable that the sale deed in question has been got executed by impersonation. beneficiary of the the learned anticipatory bail 11. for the complainant, been contended by 38411-2026(O&M) 8587 Heard. 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, filed by a person, who has no right, title or interest, whatsoever, in the property, and therefore, complaint It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Raj’, the owner of the property, in his lifetime had sworn stated before the Inquiry Officer that the sale deed in question was signed by In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in his lifetime, ‘Jagdish Raj’ against the complainant and other defendants been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that sale deed have not been got compared fro by the Investigating Officer, prosecution is not sustainable that the sale deed in question has been got executed by impersonation. While claiming that the petitioner beneficiary of the sale deed, and that he the learned counsel for the petitioner anticipatory bail. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that 3 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the complaint has been itle or interest, whatsoever, in the , and therefore, complaint at his instance is not sustainable. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that ‘Jagdish Raj’, the owner of the property, in his lifetime had sworn an affidavit, and stated before the Inquiry Officer that the sale deed in question was signed by In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in his lifetime, ‘Jagdish Raj’ had filed a civil st the complainant and other defendants for declaration. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that signatures on the om the Handwriting & finger Pr and therefore, this plea of the prosecution is not sustainable that the sale deed in question has been got e claiming that the petitioner is not the is being implicated in a false case, counsel for the petitioner has sought for the benefit of , being assisted by learned counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has the complainant that the petitioner is It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that has been falsely implicated in the present the complaint has been itle or interest, whatsoever, in the at his instance is not sustainable. that ‘Jagdish and stated before the Inquiry Officer that the sale deed in question was signed by In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned had filed a civil It has also signatures on the rint this plea of the prosecution is not sustainable that the sale deed in question has been got is not the in a false case, sought for the benefit of , being assisted by learned counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has the petitioner is GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3 the person, who was very question was being executed by an impersonator ‘Jagdish Raj’ 12. petitioner was known to ‘Jagdish Raj’, it was not possible that bona fide the impersonator (Yogesh Dhawan) as ‘Jagdish Raj’. there is direct nexus between the petitioner, role of the petitioner in the commission of crime, is necessa anticipatory bail. 13. 14. settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power matter of only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinar 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 38411-2026(O&M) 8587 the person, who was very-well aware of the fact that the sale deed in question was being executed by an impersonator ‘Jagdish Raj’). According to learned counsel for the complainant, since petitioner was known to ‘Jagdish Raj’, it was not possible that intentions or due to lack of information, he would have identified the impersonator (Yogesh Dhawan) as ‘Jagdish Raj’. there is direct nexus between the commission of offence and the present petitioner, it has been contended by learned State Counsel that role of the petitioner in the commission of crime, ary, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the bene anticipatory bail. The record has been perused carefully. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power to grant 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. 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 4 well aware of the fact that the sale deed in question was being executed by an impersonator (by projecting himself to be counsel for the complainant, since petitioner was known to ‘Jagdish Raj’, it was not possible that on account or due to lack of information, he would have identified the impersonator (Yogesh Dhawan) as ‘Jagdish Raj’. While claiming that commission of offence and the present learned State Counsel that in order to fix role of the petitioner in the commission of crime, his custodial interrogat the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of The record has been perused carefully. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect, while anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for , 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, that in a number of cases, it has been held well aware of the fact that the sale deed in by projecting himself to be counsel for the complainant, since the t of or due to lack of information, he would have identified claiming that commission of offence and the present in order to fix tion fit of As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is while anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for , 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, that in a number of cases, it has been held GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3 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 antici 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. 17. 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 str this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 18. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 38411-2026(O&M) 8587 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 antici 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 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 tition (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 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 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 power to grant anticipatory bail. 5 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 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 tition (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 ong 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:- 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 power to grant anticipatory bail. 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 patory 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 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 tition (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 ong reasons for extending indulgence of In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 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 the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3 19. concerned, a careful perusal of the same shows that in the present case, there is very specific and categorical stand of the prosecution that the sale deed has been executed by the instructions of Investigating Officer, the learned State Counsel has categorically stated that photograph of vendor available on the sale deed is not of ‘Jagdish Raj’, but of ‘Yogesh Dhawan’. 20. that prima facie dated 15.07.2025, is an outcome of fraud, impersonator. Since the petitioner is signatory to the abovement deed as identifier of the vendor (the impersonator), it is hereby held that the petitioner cannot shy away abovementioned illegal act, if any. 21. custodial interrogation Agency, and in the present case, if such right is den Agency, 38411-2026(O&M) 8587 (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 informat from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, a careful perusal of the same shows that in the present case, there is very specific and categorical stand of the prosecution that the sale deed has been executed by an impersdonator. During the course of arguments, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, the learned State Counsel has categorically stated that photograph of vendor available on the sale deed is not of ‘Jagdish Raj’, but of ‘Yogesh Dhawan’. The abovementioned factual matrix of the present case shows prima facie there is very strong evidence dated 15.07.2025, is an outcome of fraud, impersonator. Since the petitioner is signatory to the abovement deed as identifier of the vendor (the impersonator), it is hereby held that the petitioner cannot shy away from the responsibility of the consequences of abovementioned illegal act, if any. It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial interrogation is a valuable right and in the present case, if such right is den the same may result into miscarriage of justice 6 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 As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, a careful perusal of the same shows that in the present case, there is very specific and categorical stand of the prosecution that the sale deed . During the course of arguments, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, the learned State Counsel has categorically stated that photograph of vendor available on the sale deed is not of ‘Jagdish Raj’, but of ‘Yogesh Dhawan’. oned factual matrix of the present case shows there is very strong evidence qua the plea that the sale deed dated 15.07.2025, is an outcome of fraud, and that it was executed by an impersonator. Since the petitioner is signatory to the abovementioned sale deed as identifier of the vendor (the impersonator), it is hereby held that the the responsibility of the consequences of t shall not be out of place to mention here that right of is a valuable right available to an Investigating and in the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating result into miscarriage of justice. In such 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 ion 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 As far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, a careful perusal of the same shows that in the present case, there is very specific and categorical stand of the prosecution that the sale deed . During the course of arguments, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, the learned State Counsel has categorically stated that photograph of vendor available on the sale deed is oned factual matrix of the present case shows that the sale deed executed by an ioned sale deed as identifier of the vendor (the impersonator), it is hereby held that the the responsibility of the consequences of right of ting ied to the Investigating . In such GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3 circumstances Investigating Agency 22. the relevant laws, it the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre being devoid of merits accordingly 23. hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 24. application 16.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 38411-2026(O&M) 8587 circumstances the investigation may not take a proper headway Investigating Agency may not be able to collect requisite evidence. Considering the above-discussed facts and circumstances and the relevant laws, it is hereby observed that extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre-arrest bail. Thus, it is hereby held devoid of merits deserves dismissal accordingly. It is, however, clarified that the observations 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 may not take a proper headway and the may not be able to collect requisite evidence. discussed facts and circumstances and observed that no ground exists for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner, by according him it is hereby held that the present petition dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed ever, clarified that the observations recorded hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No and the discussed facts and circumstances and no ground exists for invoking the petition dismissed, recorded hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document