CRM-M-42437-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101 CRM-M-42437-2025 Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 BALWINDER SINGH ....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent(s) CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Present : Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Japjot Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Mandeep Budhiraja, Advocate for Mr. Mohd. Jameel, Advocate for the complainant. ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.154 dated 17.06.2025 registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station City-1 Malerkotla, Malerkotla, District Malerkotla, Punjab. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to him in the entire incident. Moreso, the case is apparently civil in nature. It is further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is based upon the solitary disclosure statement of one Manpreet Kaur, who impersonated as Gurpreet Kaur and the petitioner is alleged to have facilitated main accused Manpreet Kaur in the preparation of certain documents, including the forged identity. Learned counsel further submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required. DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.07.03 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42437-2025 2 3. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposes the prayer and submits that the name of the petitioner has come up in disclosure statement of main accused Manpreet Kaur who had impersonated herself as Gurpreet Kaur and there cannot be any better person than Manpreet Kaur herself to testify the same as to who facilitated her in preparing the forged documents on the basis of which she impersonated as Gurpreet Kaur. Moreso, learned State counsel has also pointed out that the antecedants of the petitioner has not clean and there are three more FIRs registered against him. It is vehemently submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender as the other FIRs are also registered against him under Section 420 IPC. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is important to unveil the essential link of the chain of the conspiracy hatched by all the accused, in which the petitioner has actively connived and participated. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. Considering the above and the antecedants of the petitioners whereby the petitioner is involved in the present FIR and in other FIRs and the fact that main accused Manpreet Kaur herself has nominated the petitioner to be the person who facilitated in preparing the forged document, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner assumes significant importance to ensure that the investigation in this case comes to its logical end especially in view of the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “CBI v. Anil Sharma”, (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under: “We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.07.03 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42437-2025 3 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 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 would not conduct themselves as offenders.” 6. In light of the above, this Court does not find any ground to grant the extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the present petition is dismissed. (ALOK JAIN) 02.07.2026 JUDGE Deepak Patwal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No 2. Whether reportable Yes/No DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.07.03 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document