CRM-M-50520-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 105 CRM-M-50520-2025 Decided on : 10.09.2025 SETHI LAL ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ......RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr.Jitender Singh Dadwal , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. AG, Punjab duly assisted by Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for complainant. **** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0148, dated 13.08.2025, under Section 82 of Registration Act and under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that a complaint was made by one Pardeep Kumar son of Sham Sundar against Kuldeep Singh son of Gurmeet Singh, Jagseer Singh son of Jeet Singh, Daljeet Singh son of Jaswinder Singh, Vasudev Singh son of Harbhajan Singh, Sham Lal son of Gopal Das, Bindra and Chhabra Property Dealer and Rajesh regarding preparing forged documents and taking possession of the property in question. Thus, a request was made to investigate the matter and take legal action against the culprits involved. After preliminary enquiry FIR was registered against Vasudev Singh, Shastri, Ajit Singh, Kala Bansal, Gokal Page 1 of 3 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.09.23 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-50520-2025 Chand Numberdar and Sethi Lal (petitioner herein). Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for grant of concession of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was declined to him vide order dated 30.08.2025. Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that petitioner is only the attesting witness to alleged sale deed only in good faith and has no concern with the transaction. He further submits that the case is totally based on the documentary evidence and the entire documents are already in the possession of the police, thus, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the present case and hence, he deserves to be granted concession of anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application. It has been submitted that petitioner actively participated in the commission of offence as attested witness before registration authority and without his convenience the present forgery is not possible. The investigation would seriously be prejudiced in case the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. Thus, learned counsel submits that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is deciphered that the FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of the complaint made by the son of Sham Lal, owner of the plot in dispute. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along Page 2 of 3 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.09.23 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-50520-2025 with co-accused had hatched a conspiracy for registration of a fake sale deed dated 11.10.2024 bearing Vasika No.11944 by impersonating father of the complainant-Sham Lal. The petitioner duly attested the sale deed as attesting witness i.e. regarding identity of parties, so without his convenience the commission of offence in persent case is not possible. 6. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie established. The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 8. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 10.09.2025 pry Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO Page 3 of 3 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.09.23 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document