CRM-M-20975 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 201 NAND LAL STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P taken on record. 2. of the respondent No.2 3. the respondent No.2 and in view of urgency in the matter, the present matter is being heard. 20975-2026 (O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION NAND LAL VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent No.2. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. Status report has been submitted by the taken on record. It has been informed that despite best efforts, the whereabouts respondent No.2 could not be traced. In view of above, without waiting for service of summons upon the respondent No.2 and in view of urgency in the matter, the present matter is being heard. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20975-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 04.06.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the petitioner. . None for the respondent No.2. has been submitted by the State. The same be It has been informed that despite best efforts, the whereabouts could not be traced. In view of above, without waiting for service of summons upon the respondent No.2 and in view of urgency in the matter, the present matter .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENTS The same be It has been informed that despite best efforts, the whereabouts In view of above, without waiting for service of summons upon the respondent No.2 and in view of urgency in the matter, the present matter GAURAV THAKUR 2026.06.04 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20975 4. petitioner under Section 4 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. dated 18.03.2026 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 District Faridkot 5. addressed to this Court by ‘complainant’ only. racket of fur with Court officials, Readers and Clerks of Advocates, that on p Cards, jamabandis and property papers furnished. inquiry was conducted ‘Bhupinder Singh’, ‘Tarsem Singh’ ‘Beant Singh’ were habitually using forged documents and fake identities. As per complainant, petitioner as ‘Narinder Singh V/s Shi under Sections 174 14.01.2023 under Sections 307, 331, 354, 186, 149, 201 of IPC, PS City Faridkot, in favour of different accused and forged affidavits. 20975-2026 (O&M) 8587 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. 18.03.2026, for the commission of of 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code Faridkot. The abovementioned FIR came into being addressed to this Court by ‘Gurmeet Kaur’, ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the racket of furnishing fake surety bonds in District Faridkot with Court officials, Readers and Clerks of Advocates, payment of money by using forged documents, such as Aadhaar Cards, jamabandis and property papers . According to complainant, on inquiry was conducted, which revealed ‘Bhupinder Singh’, ‘Tarsem Singh’, ‘Nand Lal’ (the petitioner herein) ‘Beant Singh’ were habitually furnishing using forged documents and fake identities. As per complainant, petitioner had also furnished sureties in different cases, including cases titled as ‘Narinder Singh V/s Shinderpal Kaur’, FIR No.120 dated 04.09.2023 under Sections 174-A of IPC, PS Sadar Kotkapura and FIR No.117 dated 14.01.2023 under Sections 307, 331, 354, 186, 149, 201 of IPC, PS City Faridkot, in favour of different accused, and forged affidavits. 2 arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the 82 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.130 , for the commission of offence punishable under Section Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Faridkot FIR came into being on the complaint ‘Gurmeet Kaur’, hereinafter being referred to as by the above-named complainant that nishing fake surety bonds in District Faridkot, in connivance with Court officials, Readers and Clerks of Advocates, was working, a forged documents, such as Aadhaar Cards, jamabandis and property papers, fake surety bonds are be on the directions of this Court, an , which revealed that several persons including , ‘Nand Lal’ (the petitioner herein) and furnishing surety bonds in multiple cases by using forged documents and fake identities. As per complainant, sureties in different cases, including cases titled nderpal Kaur’, FIR No.120 dated 04.09.2023 A of IPC, PS Sadar Kotkapura and FIR No.117 dated 14.01.2023 under Sections 307, 331, 354, 186, 149, 201 of IPC, PS City by using different Aadhaar Cards filed by the 82 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 130 fence punishable under Sections City Faridkot, on the complaint hereinafter being referred to as complainant that a in connivance and forged documents, such as Aadhaar eing directions of this Court, an including and surety bonds in multiple cases by using forged documents and fake identities. As per complainant, the sureties in different cases, including cases titled nderpal Kaur’, FIR No.120 dated 04.09.2023 A of IPC, PS Sadar Kotkapura and FIR No.117 dated 14.01.2023 under Sections 307, 331, 354, 186, 149, 201 of IPC, PS City ar Cards GAURAV THAKUR 2026.06.04 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20975 6. abovementioned investigation taken up. 7. 8. the petitioner is innocent case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, against the petitioner is that he had furnished suret cases for thre petitioner, the to join the investigation. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence is triab and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner favourable sought for the benefit of 9. abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, very serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to in the commission of crime of playing learned State Counsel, the case of the petitioner is not a simple case, wherein he had furnished three different accused. According to learned bonds, furni containing 20975-2026 (O&M) 8587 It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case investigation taken up. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, against the petitioner is that he had furnished suret for three different accused. As argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was never joined in the inquiry, and that he is ready to join the investigation. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate custodial interrogation of the petitioner favourable result. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for the benefit of pre-arrest bail. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, very serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to in the commission of crime of playing fraud with the judicial learned State Counsel, the case of the petitioner is not a simple case, wherein he had furnished three different surety bond accused. According to learned State Counsel, furnished by the petitioner, he had used three different Aadhaar Card containing different numbers. 3 It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to formal FIR of this case has been lodged and the It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had furnished surety bonds in three different e different accused. As argued by learned counsel for the petitioner was never joined in the inquiry, and that he is ready to join the investigation. It has also been contended by learned counsel for le by the Court of Judicial Magistrate custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce any above, the learned counsel for the petitioner learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, there are very serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to his involvement fraud with the judicial system. As per learned State Counsel, the case of the petitioner is not a simple case, wherein bonds with regard to three different State Counsel, in fact for all the three sur shed by the petitioner, he had used three different Aadhaar Card It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to lodged and the petitioner that who has been falsely implicated in the present the only allegation in three different e different accused. As argued by learned counsel for the petitioner was never joined in the inquiry, and that he is ready to join the investigation. It has also been contended by learned counsel for le by the Court of Judicial Magistrate not likely to produce any above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has learned State Counsel has controverted the there are his involvement system. As per learned State Counsel, the case of the petitioner is not a simple case, wherein three different rety shed by the petitioner, he had used three different Aadhaar Card GAURAV THAKUR 2026.06.04 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20975 10. Counsel that only one Aadhaar could have been genuine, Aadhaar Counsel, in order to fix the role and also to custodial interrogation 11. 12. petitioner are that in t furnished bail bonds. However, while furnishing bail bonds: 13. petitioner, which amounts to commission of serious offence, it is hereby held that the petitioner, who deserve a considerate view. 14. settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for grant of anticipa 20975-2026 (O&M) 8587 With regard to above, it has been Counsel that only one Aadhaar could have been genuine, Cards used by the petitioner w , in order to fix the role of petitioner in the commission of to find out the details of other persons involved in the same offence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The record has been perused carefully. The instant case is a case, wherein the allegations against the petitioner are that in three different cases for three different accused, he furnished bail bonds. However, while furnishing bail bonds: Firstly, he used three different Aadhaar Cards, whic stretch of imagination cannot be said to be genuine Aadhaar Cards, because in all the three Aadhaar Cards different Aadhaar numbers; and Secondly, the petitioner also furnished false affidavit to t effect that he had not furnished any surety accused. Taking into consideration the abovementioned acts of the petitioner, which amounts to commission of serious offence, it is hereby held that the petitioner, who was playing fraud with the judicial system, does not deserve a considerate view. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted 4 above, it has been contended by learned State Counsel that only one Aadhaar could have been genuine, and thus t were forged. As per learned State of petitioner in the commission of offence of other persons involved in the same offence, of the petitioner is necessary. The record has been perused carefully. The instant case is a case, wherein the allegations against the hree different cases for three different accused, he furnished bail bonds. However, while furnishing bail bonds:- e used three different Aadhaar Cards, which by any cannot be said to be genuine Aadhaar in all the three Aadhaar Cards there were different Aadhaar numbers; and the petitioner also furnished false affidavit to t effect that he had not furnished any surety bonds for any ot Taking into consideration the abovementioned acts of the petitioner, which amounts to commission of serious offence, it is hereby held was playing fraud with the judicial system, does not As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect, while tory bail and it should not be granted contended by learned State two forged. As per learned State offence, of other persons involved in the same offence, The instant case is a case, wherein the allegations against the hree different cases for three different accused, he h by any cannot be said to be genuine Aadhaar were the petitioner also furnished false affidavit to the ther Taking into consideration the abovementioned acts of the petitioner, which amounts to commission of serious offence, it is hereby held was playing fraud with the judicial system, does not As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is while tory bail and it should not be granted GAURAV THAKUR 2026.06.04 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20975 as a matter of granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 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 that in a number of cases, it has been held 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 anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discret 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 m 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 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. 20975-2026 (O&M) 8587 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 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 hat 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 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 interim protection to the accused in serious cases m 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 Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided 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 extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 5 . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances , 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 hat 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 ion 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. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita 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 strong reasons for extending indulgence of extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances '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 hat 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 ion 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 ay 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 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.06.04 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20975 18. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 19. custodial interrogation the present c likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway requisite evidence. 20. the relevant laws, it the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre 20975-2026 (O&M) 8587 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 the power to grant anticipatory bail. (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 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 exercised. It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial interrogation is a valuable right the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway and the Investigating Agency requisite evidence. Considering the above-discussed facts and circumstances and the relevant laws, it is hereby observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre-arrest bail. Thus, it is hereb 6 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:- The power under 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 the power to grant anticipatory bail. 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 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be t shall not be out of place to mention here that the right is a valuable right of the Investigating Agency, and in ied to the Investigating Agency, it is likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a and the Investigating Agency may not be able to collect the discussed facts and circumstances and observed that no ground exists for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner, by according h it is hereby held that the present petition In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab The power under 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 the 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 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be t of and in it is may not take a may not be able to collect the discussed facts and circumstances and no ground exists for invoking him petition GAURAV THAKUR 2026.06.04 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20975 being devoid of merits accordingly 21. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits 22. application 04.06.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 20975-2026 (O&M) 8587 devoid of merits deserves dismissal accordingly. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits 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 dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No Yes/No dismissed, It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.06.04 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document