CRM-M-21118-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 223 CRM-M-21118-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:10.07.2026 Yash Parteek ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate and Ms. Apurva Rathee, Advocate for the complainant. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral). 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.311, dated 23.10.2025, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, at Police Station Sonipat City, District Sonipat. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant – Rajesh Kumar Dahiya, alleging therein that on 28.11.2024, he had submitted complaints before the SHO, Kundli as well as the Commissioner of Police, Sonipat regarding a fraud committed by the present petitioner in connivance with others but no action had been taken. It was alleged that his sister-in-law Usha Kiran Rathi after her retirement was HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.10 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21118-2026 (O&M) -2- residing in an apartment in Sector-59, Kundli. She had died on 04.02.2018 at the residence of his another sister-in-law Taru Lata. After performing her last rites, they had reached at her apartment on 05.02.2018 and had found the lock of the same to be broken. All the household articles including CCTV camera installed in the apartment were found to be stolen. FIR No.52 of 2018 was registered against the petitioner, who was working as a servant of the deceased. The petitioner, then filed a petition under Section 372 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, claiming himself to be legal heir of deceased - Usha Kiran Rathi. He had relied upon certain documents showing that the apartment owned by deceased Usha Kiran Rahti had been transferred in his name. The petitioner was also an employee of TDI Kundli and had done so in connivance with the officials thereof. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had committed offence of cheating and forgery and therefore, he prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that a conveyance deed on the basis of an affidavit sworn by the petitioner and a death certificate of deceased Usha Kiran Rathi in favour of the petitioner were prepared. He had also relied upon a deed of adoption purported to have been executed by deceased and her former husband Ajit Rathi executing any such document. It was revealed that the petitioner had prepared forged and fabricated documents for his unlawful gain. He was arrested on 26.03.2026. On interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he was adopted by deceased Usha Kiran Rathi when he was only 03 years old. He was made her nominee by the deceased. However, subsequently, on account of some differences, she had become offended with him and had gone to his aunt's place wherein she had died after her death. He HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.10 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21118-2026 (O&M) -3- got prepared false and fabricated death certificate and on the basis of the same, got property of the deceased transferred in his name. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was taken in adoption by the deceased in the year 1990 and was always treated as her son. The documents placed on record by him at Annexure P-2 to P-4 affirm this fact. He had been residing with the deceased. Even in the divorce petition filed by his adoptive father, the fact of his being a adoptive child of the deceased had been mentioned. Even in his wedding invitation card, the name of his mother was mentioned as that of the deceased and none else. Her last ceremonies were performed by him. He was implicated in this case after he had filed a petition for issuance of succession certificate. The subject offences are not at all made out against the petitioner. He has been in custody since 26.03.2026. Investigation now stands completed. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as with a dishonest intention and in order to usurp the property left by the deceased, he had prepared forged and fabricated documents in the form of adoption deed and death certificate of the deceased and by using the same, had got the property of the HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.10 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21118-2026 (O&M) -4- deceased transferred in his name. There are chances of the petitioner's intimidating the witnesses or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. FIR No.52 of 2018 has already been registered against him and as such, his antecedents cannot be stated to be clean. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have prepared forged and fabricated documents in order to establish his claim of being adoptive son of the deceased, who had died way back in the year 2018. It is on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion as to the petitioner's committing offence of forgery and use of forged document can be drawn. The petitioner's continued detention is not required as the investigation already stands concluded. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future. The subject offences are triable by the Magistrate. It is well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and that the bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Keeping in view the facts as discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.10 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21118-2026 (O&M) -5- construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 10.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.10 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document