CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35195 35195 35195 35195 107 107 107 107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Naterpal Singh State of Haryana Date of Date of Date of Date of DDDDecision: ecision: ecision: ecision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present: SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of pre No.0321 dated Sections 409 and 120 Police Station Mullana, District Ambala. 2. petitioner, namely, Ghelari, allegedly 35195 35195 35195 35195----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35195 35195 35195 35195---- Naterpal Singh versus Haryana ecision: ecision: ecision: ecision: July 22 July 22 July 22 July 22, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July 22 July 22 July 22 July 22, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Aman Pal, Senior Advocate Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate Mr. Balraj Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Prashant, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Titiksha, Advocate for the complainant ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner dated 19.12.2025, registered for the offences punishable under 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Police Station Mullana, District Ambala. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that petitioner, namely, Praveen Kumar, the then Ex allegedly manipulated the ownership record pertaining to Plot 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH ATCHANDIGARH ----2026 2026 2026 2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate with Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate, and the petitioner. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. and for the complainant. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR registered for the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), at FIR in question is that co-accused of the Praveen Kumar, the then Ex-Sarpanch of Village manipulated the ownership record pertaining to Plot 1111 ....Petitioner ....Respondent Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) in case bearing FIR registered for the offences punishable under , at of the Sarpanch of Village manipulated the ownership record pertaining to Plot MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35195 35195 35195 35195----2026 2026 2026 2026 2222 No.21 in the field book of the Abadi Deh of Village Ghelari. It is alleged that he altered the ownership entry from the name of the Gram Panchayat to that of his grandfather, Jagdish Singh. The petitioner was posted as Gram Sachiv (Secretary) of Village Ghelari from 17.05.2021 to 18.02.2022. It is further alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused Praveen Kumar, failed to produce the field book of Village Ghelari. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned senior counsel has iterated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and the forgery in question was committed during the tenure of Ex-Sarpanch, namely, Parveen Kumar between 24.02.2016 to 24.02.2021, whereas, the petitioner assumed charge of Village Ghelri only on 17.05.2021 and finally on 25.05.2021. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that upon comparison of field books, it was discovered that Parveen Kumar had altered the entry relating to plot No.21 by incorporating the name of his grandfather in place of Gram Panchayat, thereby, forging the field book. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner never obtained the record of Panchayat Ghelri from any Sarpanch or Panchayat Secretary and even there is even no receipt evidencing submission or delivery of full record to the petitioner. It has been further submitted that pursuant to the directions of the BDPO, Barara, Dhoop Singh, Patwari has recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar, Patwari, wherein, he categorically stated that MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35195 35195 35195 35195----2026 2026 2026 2026 3333 Parveen Kumar, while serving as Sarpanch, had obtained the original field book from him for the purpose of producing the same in Court, but despite repeated reminders, the said record was never returned. Thereafter, Dhoop Singh submitted his final report specifically stating that both the field books did not tally and the then Sarpanch had altered the entries at Sr. No.21. Finally, BDPO recommended initiation of legal action against Parveen Kumar. Learned senior counsel has contended that at the relevant time, the petitioner was not holding the charge of the Panchayat and it was Dinesh Kumar who had received the record. It has, thus, been contended that the petitioner has no relation, nexus or connection whatsoever with the Ex-Sarpanch – Parveen Kumar. The petitioner is neither beneficiary of the alleged alteration nor has derived any advantage from the construction or possession of the disputed plot. It has been submitted that the petitioner being neither custodian nor recipient of the record in question cannot be held responsible for alleged forgery. 3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the status report by way of an affidavit dated 14.07.2026, which is already on record, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35195 35195 35195 35195----2026 2026 2026 2026 4444 petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It has been stated, in para-18 of the aforesaid status report, as under: ““““18. That as far as role of the accused-petitioner and allegations against him are that, he was serving as the Gram Sachiv (Secretary) of Village Ghelari during the relevant period, center on his active connivance and forgery executed in tandem with the main accused, Praveen Kumar (Ex-Sarpanch), to manipulate public revenue records. Specifically, it is alleged that the petitioner failed in his statutory duty to collect and safely deposit the official village records with the Block Development & Panchayat Officer following the expiry of the Sarpanch's term. Instead, while the original authentic records explicitly reflected Plot No.21 under the ownership and occupation of the Gram Panchayat, the co-accused allegedly fabricated a fresh, fraudulent record to illicitly transfer the property into the name of his grandfather, Jagdish Singh. According to the investigation, the co-accused destroyed the genuine village records and subsequently handed over the newly prepared forged document to the petitioner, who accepted it. Furthermore, the prosecution contends that the petitioner acted in gross negligence and in direct violation of prescribed administrative rules to create an intentional escape route for the Ex-Sarpanch; rather than safeguarding the public property, he actively failed to produce the field book when explicitly directed by the authorities, thereby resulting in the deliberate concealment and suppression of critical public records.”””” 4.1. It has been submitted that considering the seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner maybe necessary to unearth the broader conspiracy. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for. 4.2. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the principal allegation against the co-accused, Praveen Kumar, the then Ex-Sarpanch, is that he forged the Gram Panchayat record by fraudulently altering the ownership entry of Plot No.21 from the Gram Panchayat to the name of his grandfather, Jagdish Singh. It is further contended that the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35195 35195 35195 35195----2026 2026 2026 2026 5555 petitioner, who was serving as the Gram Sachiv during the relevant period, knowingly accepted the forged record from the co-accused and thereafter failed to produce the original field book despite being specifically directed by the competent authorities to do so. According to the complainant, the petitioner’s conduct demonstrates his active connivance with the co- accused in concealing the forged record and facilitating the alleged manipulation of public documents. It has been further argued that, in case, the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 6. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. From the perusal of the prosecution case and the status report filed by the State, it is, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner, who was serving as the Gram Sachiv (Secretary) of Village Ghelari during the relevant period, is not sought to be implicated merely by virtue of his official position. Rather, the allegations against him are of active connivance with co-accused Praveen Kumar, the then Ex-Sarpanch, in facilitating the manipulation of the ownership record pertaining to Plot No.21 of the Abadi Deh land. The prosecution case indicates that despite being under a statutory obligation to secure and deposit the village records with the Block Development and Panchayat Officer upon the expiry of the Sarpanch’s tenure, the petitioner failed to discharge the said duty. Prima MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35195 35195 35195 35195----2026 2026 2026 2026 6666 facie, the investigation further indicates that while the original village records reflected Plot No.21 as belonging to the Gram Panchayat, the same were allegedly substituted by a forged record showing the ownership in the name of Jagdish Singh (grandfather of Ex-Sarpanch). It is the case of the prosecution that the original records were destroyed and a fabricated field book was prepared by the co-accused, which was thereafter accepted and retained by the petitioner. The material collected during investigation, prima facie, reveals that when the competent authority specifically directed the petitioner to produce the original field book, he failed to do so, resulting in the concealment of an important public record. 6.1. At this stage, the allegations against the petitioner disclose prima facie participation in the alleged conspiracy and forgery relating to public records. The acts attributed to the petitioner are not confined to mere administrative negligence but indicate deliberate omission and active facilitation in the commission of the alleged offences. The allegations pertain to tampering with official revenue records concerning Gram Panchayat property thereby affecting public interest and the sanctity of public documents. 6.2. Furthermore, the investigating agency has sought the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for recovery of forged record, verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. 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. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35195 35195 35195 35195----2026 2026 2026 2026 7777 7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ““““6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre- arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”””” 8. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----35195 35195 35195 35195----2026 2026 2026 2026 8888 for an effective investigation, recovery of the forged record & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. 9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 22 July 22 July 22 July 22, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment