CRM-M- CRM-M-31384 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 106 (2 cases) 1. CRM Brij Kishore @ Brij Kishor State of Haryana 2. CRM Jitender Yadav State of Haryana Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 0 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. disposed of together, as they emanate from a common FIR. 2026 titled as 2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.77 dated 24.03.2026 under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 329(4), 336(3), 338, 340 -29877-2026 31384-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 (2 cases) CRM-M-29877-2026 Brij Kishore @ Brij Kishor V/s State of Haryana CRM-M-31384-2026 Jitender Yadav V/s State of Haryana Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 08.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-29877-2026) Mr. Kartik, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-31384-2026) through V.C. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) By this common order, the aforesaid two petitions are being disposed of together, as they emanate from a common FIR. For brevity, the facts are being taken from titled as Brij Kishore @ Brij Kishor vs. State of Haryana. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.77 dated 24.03.2026 under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 329(4), 336(3), 338, 340 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ....Petitioner ....Respondent ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner Kartik, Advocate for the petitioner through V.C. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate for the complainant. this common order, the aforesaid two petitions are being disposed of together, as they emanate from a common FIR. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-29877 Brij Kishore @ Brij Kishor vs. State of Haryana. itions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.77 dated 24.03.2026 under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 329(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and this common order, the aforesaid two petitions are being 29877- itions have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.77 dated and AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- CRM-M-31384 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered 3. Singh alleged that his father had entered into an Agre 20.03.2015 with Bhagwati Devi in respect of Plot No.184 measuring 217 square yards situated in village the entire sale consideration had been paid and prevailing at the been further construction comprising rooms, boundary wall and electricity connection was subsequently raised and installed over the propert the complainant is that after the death of Bhagwati Devi, her legal heirs, namely Jitender, Santosh Rani and Mithilesh, in connivance with petitioner Brij Kishore another Agreement t CRM-M-29877 property. It complainant and the electricity connection in the name was also disconnected by misrepresentation. FIR in question came to be registered and investigation ensued. (daughter of Bhagwati Devi) having executed the Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026. Consequent thereto, offences relating to forgery and fabrication of documents were added. The i was transferred -29877-2026 31384-2026 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Singh alleged that his father had entered into an Agre 20.03.2015 with Bhagwati Devi in respect of Plot No.184 measuring 217 square yards situated in village Mauza Sahupura. the entire sale consideration had been paid and prevailing at the relevant time, the sale deed could not be executed. It been further alleged that the possession of the plot was delivered and construction comprising rooms, boundary wall and electricity connection was subsequently raised and installed over the propert the complainant is that after the death of Bhagwati Devi, her legal heirs, namely Jitender, Santosh Rani and Mithilesh, in connivance with petitioner Brij Kishore (in CRM-M-29877-2026) another Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026 in favour of Brij Kishore 29877-2026) and thereafter forcibly occupied the disputed property. It has been further alleged that threats were extended to the complainant and the electricity connection in the name disconnected by misrepresentation. FIR in question came to be registered and investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, statement of Mithilesh (daughter of Bhagwati Devi) was recorded wherein she allegedly denied having executed the Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026. Consequent thereto, offences relating to forgery and fabrication of documents were The investigation has further revealed that an amount of was transferred by petitioner Brij Kishore 2 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. As per the prosecution case, the complainant namely Dinesh Singh alleged that his father had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 20.03.2015 with Bhagwati Devi in respect of Plot No.184 measuring 217 Sahupura. As per the complainant the entire sale consideration had been paid and on account of restrictions relevant time, the sale deed could not be executed. It has possession of the plot was delivered and construction comprising rooms, boundary wall and electricity connection was subsequently raised and installed over the property. The grievance of the complainant is that after the death of Bhagwati Devi, her legal heirs, namely Jitender, Santosh Rani and Mithilesh, in connivance with petitioner and others, dishonestly created o Sell dated 05.01.2026 in favour of Brij Kishore and thereafter forcibly occupied the disputed further alleged that threats were extended to the complainant and the electricity connection in the name of the complainant disconnected by misrepresentation. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be registered and investigation ensued. investigation, statement of Mithilesh was recorded wherein she allegedly denied having executed the Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026. Consequent thereto, offences relating to forgery and fabrication of documents were further revealed that an amount of ₹5,00,000/ by petitioner Brij Kishore (in CRM-M-29877-2026) into the 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Dinesh ement to Sell dated 20.03.2015 with Bhagwati Devi in respect of Plot No.184 measuring 217 As per the complainant, restrictions has possession of the plot was delivered and construction comprising rooms, boundary wall and electricity connection The grievance of the complainant is that after the death of Bhagwati Devi, her legal heirs, namely Jitender, Santosh Rani and Mithilesh, in connivance with petitioner and others, dishonestly created (in and thereafter forcibly occupied the disputed further alleged that threats were extended to the lainant On these set of allegations, the investigation, statement of Mithilesh was recorded wherein she allegedly denied having executed the Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026. Consequent thereto, offences relating to forgery and fabrication of documents were 5,00,000/- into the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- CRM-M-31384 account of Jitender ₹2,00,000/ 4. the petitioner counsel has further iterated that the possession of a plot of land parties are already li further contended that the performance in the year 2017, which is still pending adjudication and the present FIR has been lodged only to exert pres ongoing property dispute. purchaser and ha the legal heirs of Bhagwati Devi the transaction, including ₹2,00,000/ counsel has emphasized claim of the complainant over the disputed property and, therefore, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not attracted. has been further contended that permanent and mandatory injunction and has obtained an ad injunction order from the competent Civil Court fide claim. It forgery are based primarily upon the statem whose version is disputed and cannot be treated as conclusive at the stage of investigation. agreement can only be determined during -29877-2026 31384-2026 account of Jitender (in CRM-M-31384 2,00,000/- was also allegedly made. Learned counsel for petitioner the petitioner has been falsely implicated in counsel has further iterated that the dispute pertains to possession of a plot of land which is essentially civil in nature for which the parties are already litigating before the competent civil further contended that the complainant ha performance in the year 2017, which is still pending adjudication and the present FIR has been lodged only to exert pres ongoing property dispute. Furthermore, the purchaser and has entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026 with the legal heirs of Bhagwati Devi and has paid a sum of ransaction, including ₹21,00,000/- 2,00,000/- in cash, which is duly reflected in the agreement. Learned has emphasized that the petitioner ha claim of the complainant over the disputed property and, therefore, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not attracted. has been further contended that the petitioner has also filed a civil suit fo permanent and mandatory injunction and has obtained an ad injunction order from the competent Civil Court claim. It has been further contended that forgery are based primarily upon the statem whose version is disputed and cannot be treated as conclusive at the stage of investigation. Moreover, the authenticity and validity of the disputed agreement can only be determined during 3 31384-2026) and cash payment of Learned counsel for petitioner –– Brij Kishore has iterated that has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned dispute pertains to the ownership and is essentially civil in nature for which the tigating before the competent civil Courts. It has been complainant has instituted a civil suit for specific performance in the year 2017, which is still pending adjudication and the present FIR has been lodged only to exert pressure upon the petitioner in the Furthermore, the petitioner is a bona fide Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026 with paid a sum of ₹23,00,000/- towards - through banking channels and in cash, which is duly reflected in the agreement. Learned that the petitioner has no knowledge of any prior claim of the complainant over the disputed property and, therefore, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not attracted. the petitioner has also filed a civil suit fo permanent and mandatory injunction and has obtained an ad-interim injunction order from the competent Civil Court which supports his bona has been further contended that the allegations regarding forgery are based primarily upon the statement of co-vendor Mithilesh, whose version is disputed and cannot be treated as conclusive at the stage of the authenticity and validity of the disputed agreement can only be determined during the course of trial after and cash payment of that to the FIR in question. Learned ownership and is essentially civil in nature for which the It has been instituted a civil suit for specific performance in the year 2017, which is still pending adjudication and the sure upon the petitioner in the bona fide Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026 with towards through banking channels and in cash, which is duly reflected in the agreement. Learned no knowledge of any prior claim of the complainant over the disputed property and, therefore, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not attracted. It the petitioner has also filed a civil suit for interim bona the allegations regarding vendor Mithilesh, whose version is disputed and cannot be treated as conclusive at the stage of the authenticity and validity of the disputed trial after AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- CRM-M-31384 appreciation custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted, as no recovery is to be effected from absconding from the process of justice or evidence, submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4.1. has iterated question as relating to the ownership and possession of the disputed plot. counsel has further iterated that the civil suit for specific performance regarding the property in question which is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, and present criminal proceedings are nothing but an attempt to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. petitioner, being one of the legal heirs of late Bhagwati Devi, was competent to deal with the property and cheat or defraud the complainant. According t allegations regarding fabrication of documents are based upon disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated during the course of recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and the entire case is upon documentary evidence investigating agency. absconding -29877-2026 31384-2026 appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel has further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted, as no recovery is to be effected from him. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or in case, he is enlarged on pre submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated question as the allegations levelled against him arise out of a civil dispute relating to the ownership and possession of the disputed plot. counsel has further iterated that the complainant civil suit for specific performance regarding the property in question which is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, and present criminal proceedings are nothing but an attempt to give a criminal olour to a purely civil dispute. It has been further contended that the petitioner, being one of the legal heirs of late Bhagwati Devi, was competent to deal with the property and cheat or defraud the complainant. According t allegations regarding fabrication of documents are based upon disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated during the course of trial. It has been further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and the entire case is upon documentary evidence which are investigating agency. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution 4 Learned counsel has further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted, as no recovery is to Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – Jitender Yadav he petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in the allegations levelled against him arise out of a civil dispute relating to the ownership and possession of the disputed plot. Learned complainant has already instituted a civil suit for specific performance regarding the property in question which is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, and, therefore the present criminal proceedings are nothing but an attempt to give a criminal It has been further contended that the petitioner, being one of the legal heirs of late Bhagwati Devi, was competent to deal with the property and has no intention whatsoever to cheat or defraud the complainant. According to learned counsel, the allegations regarding fabrication of documents are unsubstantiated and are based upon disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated during has been further submitted that no incriminating recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and the entire case is based which are already in possession of the Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted, as no recovery is to Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution arrest bail. On strength of these Jitender Yadav into the FIR in the allegations levelled against him arise out of a civil dispute Learned has already instituted a civil suit for specific performance regarding the property in question which therefore the present criminal proceedings are nothing but an attempt to give a criminal It has been further contended that the petitioner, being one of the legal heirs of late Bhagwati Devi, was no intention whatsoever to , the and are based upon disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated during submitted that no incriminating based already in possession of the Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- CRM-M-31384 evidence in case he is enlarged on pre submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. 5. petitions on the ground that the petitioners are serious in nature and disclose the commission of offences involving cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy. case cannot be termed as a mere civil dispute as the investigation has revealed participation of Learned State counsel 19.03.2015 was executed by Bhagwati Devi in favour of father of the complainant pursuant to which possession of the disputed plot was allegedly delivered and construction have been raised inc electricity connection. other and other accused persons, allegedly executed another Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026 in respect of the same property in favour of petitioner Brij Kishore. important role procurement of signatures purportedly on behalf of Mithilesh. contended that the interrogation of both petitioners is necessary to unravel the larger conspiracy behind the transaction. allegations petitions be dismissed. -29877-2026 31384-2026 evidence in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel petitions on the ground that the allegations petitioners are serious in nature and disclose the commission of offences involving cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy. According to learned State counsel, cannot be termed as a mere civil dispute as the investigation has revealed material indicating fabrication of documents and active participation of both the petitioners in the alleged illegal transaction. ned State counsel has emphasized that an Agreement to Sell dated .03.2015 was executed by Bhagwati Devi in favour of father of the complainant pursuant to which possession of the disputed plot was allegedly delivered and construction have been raised inc electricity connection. Despite this, the petitioners, in connivance with each other and other accused persons, allegedly executed another Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026 in respect of the same property in favour of petitioner Brij Kishore. Furthermore, the petitioner Jitender Yadav has played an important role in the preparation of the forged agreement, including procurement of signatures purportedly on behalf of Mithilesh. contended that the investigation is still at a crucial stage and interrogation of both petitioners is necessary to unravel the larger conspiracy behind the transaction. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the material collected, it is prayed that be dismissed. 5 arrest bail. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. , learned State counsel has opposed both the allegations raised against both the petitioners are serious in nature and disclose the commission of offences involving cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal intimidation ing to learned State counsel, the present cannot be termed as a mere civil dispute as the investigation has material indicating fabrication of documents and active the petitioners in the alleged illegal transaction. has emphasized that an Agreement to Sell dated .03.2015 was executed by Bhagwati Devi in favour of father of the complainant pursuant to which possession of the disputed plot was allegedly delivered and construction have been raised including installation of the the petitioners, in connivance with each other and other accused persons, allegedly executed another Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026 in respect of the same property in favour of petitioner Furthermore, the petitioner Jitender Yadav has played an in the preparation of the forged agreement, including procurement of signatures purportedly on behalf of Mithilesh. It has been ll at a crucial stage and the custodial interrogation of both petitioners is necessary to unravel the larger In view of the seriousness of the the nature of the material collected, it is prayed that both arrest bail. On the strength of these h the both the petitioners are serious in nature and disclose the commission of offences involving cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal intimidation present cannot be termed as a mere civil dispute as the investigation has material indicating fabrication of documents and active the petitioners in the alleged illegal transaction. has emphasized that an Agreement to Sell dated .03.2015 was executed by Bhagwati Devi in favour of father of the complainant pursuant to which possession of the disputed plot was allegedly luding installation of the the petitioners, in connivance with each other and other accused persons, allegedly executed another Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026 in respect of the same property in favour of petitioner Furthermore, the petitioner Jitender Yadav has played an in the preparation of the forged agreement, including It has been custodial interrogation of both petitioners is necessary to unravel the larger In view of the seriousness of the the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- CRM-M-31384 5.1. the contentions raised by learned State counsel and has prayed for the dismissal of the petition(s) in hand. 6. gone through the available record of the case. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977 reads as under: 8. against both Jitender Yadav as per the prosecution, he was aware of the earlier Agreement to Sell dated -29877-2026 31384-2026 Learned senior counsel has raised submission in tandem with the contentions raised by learned State counsel and has prayed for the dismissal of the petition(s) in hand. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival pa gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977 reads as under: “12. In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the al are of extreme serious in nature. xxx xxx 16. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be gra serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itsel to grant anticipatory bail.” As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations both the petitioners are grave and specific. Jitender Yadav is alleged to be one of the legal heirs of B as per the prosecution, he was aware of the earlier Agreement to Sell dated 6 Learned senior counsel has raised submission in tandem with the contentions raised by learned State counsel and has prayed for the I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, relevant whereof In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the on to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which are of extreme serious in nature. xxx xxx 16. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant ts to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations are grave and specific. The petitioner namely is alleged to be one of the legal heirs of Bhagwati Devi and as per the prosecution, he was aware of the earlier Agreement to Sell dated Learned senior counsel has raised submission in tandem with the contentions raised by learned State counsel and has prayed for the rties and have It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun relevant whereof In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the on to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly legations, which 16. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required nted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant ts to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial f, cannot be a ground As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, the allegations etitioner namely hagwati Devi and as per the prosecution, he was aware of the earlier Agreement to Sell dated AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- CRM-M-31384 19.03.2015 executed in favour of the father of the complainant. However, he subsequently participated in the execution of another Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.20 collected during the course of investigation, it transpires that ₹5,00,000/ Kishore & cash. Furthermore, as per the facilitated vendor Mithilesh that she ha document. Similarly, petitioner beneficiary of the disputed Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026. The investigation agreement consideration pursuant thereto. Apart from being the beneficiary of the disputed agreement, specific allegations have approached the electricity department for connection documents in the name of Dharambir. The contention that the matter is purely civil in nature does not, at this stage, persuade this Court to grant the concession of of this Court, m cannot be criminal conspiracy of cognizable offences. including the statement of Mithilesh and the forensic report concerning the disputed signatures, cannot be brushed aside at this preliminary stage. -29877-2026 31384-2026 .03.2015 executed in favour of the father of the complainant. However, he subsequently participated in the execution of another Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026 in favour of petitioner Brij Kishore. collected during the course of investigation, it transpires that 5,00,000/- has been transferred into his & an additional amount of ₹2,00,000/ Furthermore, as per the prosecution facilitated the execution of the disputed agreement despite the claim of co Mithilesh that she has neither visited Faridabad nor executed the said document. Similarly, petitioner –– Brij Kishore beneficiary of the disputed Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026. The investigation conducted so far indicates that he greement with the legal heirs of deceased consideration pursuant thereto. Apart from being the beneficiary of the disputed agreement, specific allegations have approached the electricity department for connection in the name of the complainant documents in the name of Dharambir. The contention that the matter is purely civil in nature does not, at this stage, persuade this Court to grant the sion of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s) of this Court, mere pendency of civil proceedings between the parties cannot be ignored when prima facie offence criminal conspiracy are made out and the of cognizable offences. The material collected during investigation, including the statement of Mithilesh and the forensic report concerning the disputed signatures, cannot be brushed aside at this preliminary stage. 7 .03.2015 executed in favour of the father of the complainant. However, he subsequently participated in the execution of another Agreement to Sell 26 in favour of petitioner Brij Kishore. As per the material collected during the course of investigation, it transpires that a sum of his bank account by petitioner Brij 2,00,000/- has allegedly been paid in prosecution, the petitioner Jitender Yadav has he disputed agreement despite the claim of co neither visited Faridabad nor executed the said Brij Kishore is alleged to be the beneficiary of the disputed Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026. The indicates that he has entered into deceased Bhagwati Devi and paid consideration pursuant thereto. Apart from being the beneficiary of the disputed agreement, specific allegations have been levelled that that he has approached the electricity department for disconnection of an electricity in the name of the complainant by allegedly signing documents in the name of Dharambir. The contention that the matter is purely civil in nature does not, at this stage, persuade this Court to grant the to the petitioner(s). In the considered opinion ere pendency of civil proceedings between the parties offence(s) of cheating, forgery and the allegations disclose commission The material collected during investigation, including the statement of Mithilesh and the forensic report concerning the disputed signatures, cannot be brushed aside at this preliminary stage. .03.2015 executed in favour of the father of the complainant. However, he subsequently participated in the execution of another Agreement to Sell As per the material a sum of bank account by petitioner Brij paid in has he disputed agreement despite the claim of co- neither visited Faridabad nor executed the said is alleged to be the beneficiary of the disputed Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2026. The entered into an Bhagwati Devi and paid consideration pursuant thereto. Apart from being the beneficiary of the has disconnection of an electricity the documents in the name of Dharambir. The contention that the matter is purely civil in nature does not, at this stage, persuade this Court to grant the In the considered opinion ere pendency of civil proceedings between the parties of cheating, forgery and allegations disclose commission The material collected during investigation, including the statement of Mithilesh and the forensic report concerning the disputed signatures, cannot be brushed aside at this preliminary stage. AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- CRM-M-31384 Whether the disputed agreement is genuine or forged is a matter that shall be determined during 9. stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner falsely implicated It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for 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 impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that petitioner investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner investigation. In 1039, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) -29877-2026 31384-2026 the disputed agreement is genuine or forged is a matter that shall be determined during the trial Moreover, no cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner falsely implicated into the present FIR. The investigation is at nascent stage. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for 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 wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie petitioner(s). The material which has come on reco investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) , the Hon'ble 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 susp 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 interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre 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 need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all 8 the disputed agreement is genuine or forged is a matter that shall plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner(s) have been The investigation is at nascent stage. 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 and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no prima facie case is not made out against the . The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the , as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is 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 itual. 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 the disputed agreement is genuine or forged is a matter that shall plausible cause has been shown, at this been The investigation is at nascent stage. 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 and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no case is not made out against the rd and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the , as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is ect who is 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 concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to itual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- CRM-M-31384 10. offence and the requirement of the custodial interr thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner milieu of the case in hand. 11. (i) dismissed. (ii) of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. (iii) July 06, 202 Ajay -29877-2026 31384-2026 accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to pre police officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. In view of the gravity of the allegations, offence and the requirement of the custodial interr thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner(s) do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual of the case in hand. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is Both the petition(s) are devoid of merits and dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 9 accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” In view of the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the offence and the requirement of the custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: devoid of merits and are hereby Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No sume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences the nature of the for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual hereby Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document