217 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-16552 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 Nihal Singh ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Deepali Verma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainant. Surya Partap Singh, J. 1. This petition for anticipatory bail is the first petition filed by the 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. 444 dated 09.12.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 120-B, 419, 420, 423, 467, 468 & 471 of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’, hereinafter being referred to as “IPC”, Police Station Hisar Civil Lines, District Hisar, Haryana. 2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Gyan Chand Goyal’, hereinafter being referred to as “complainant” only. It was stated by the above named complainant that his maternal uncle, namely ‘Khajanchi Lal’ was owner of agricultural land situated in in District Hisar, DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-16552 of 2026 2 and that he had appointed the complainant as his attorney, and in that regard executed a general power of attorney in the year 1976. According to complainant although the payment for the purchase of above said land, in the year 1967, was made by the father of the complainant, but the sale deed was got executed in the name of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ and the above-mentioned property has been always looked after by the complainant being attorney of ‘Khajanchi Lal’. 3. The complainant further alleged that in the year 1979 ‘Khajanchi Lal’ passed away, and that after the death of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ three power of attorneys were forged by three persons, namely ‘Nihal Singh’ in the year 2009, ‘Subhash Jain’ in the yer 2010 and ‘Jugal Kishore’ in the year 2012. As per complainant all the above-mentioned three documents are forged and fabricated documents, and that on the basis of forged power of attorney a part of the estate of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ has been sold by the fraudsters. In view of above, the complainant has sought for action against the persons who were responsible for the execution of above-mentioned forged documents. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that in response to above- mentioned complaint, firstly the inquiry was conducted and thereafter, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case the most significant fact to be taken into consideration is that the alleged power of attorney, executed in favour of petitioner in the year 2009, was never used, and that any part of the estate of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-16552 of 2026 3 was never transferred on the basis of above-mentioned power of attorney. According to learned counsel for the petitioner since the above-mentioned power of attorney was never used, neither the offence of cheating nor the offence of using forged documents punishable under Sections 420 & 471 of IPC, respectively, are also made out. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce any fruitful result. 7. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the FIR in question has been lodged at the instance of ‘Gyan Chand Goyal’ who does not have title over the property in question and therefore, there is no possibility of causing any loss to the above named complainant. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, the son of ‘Khajanchi Lal’, the owner of the property, has already got his statement recorded before the Investigating Officer, stating therein that he is not interested in pursuing the present prosecution against the petitioner and his other co-accused. 8. The above-mentioned arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been controverted by the learned State counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that in the present case there are allegations for the commission of a cognizable offence and therefore, simply because the complainant does not have any title/interest in the property in dispute, the proceedings for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 467 & 468 of IPC, being cognizable offence, cannot be closed. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-16552 of 2026 4 9. It has further been contended by the learned State counsel that the petitioner is the person in whose favour the power of attorney has been executed in the year 2009, whereas the executor of the same had died in the year 1979. According to learned State counsel since the above-mentioned document is apparently a forged document, in order to dig out truth behind the execution of above-mentioned document, and to expose the identity of the persons who were responsible for the above-mentioned offence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. Those factors are:- i) that petitioner is the beneficiary of a document, i.e. power of attorney, which is purported to have been executed by ‘Khajanchi Lal’ in the year 2009, whereas ‘Khajanchi Lal’ had died in the year 1979 itself; ii) that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is cognizable offence and therefore, this plea does not hold good that at the instance of complainant the FIR cannot be lodged; iii) that even if the above-mentioned power of attorney has not been used by the petitioner, the offence punishable under Sections 467 & 468 of IPC is made out; iv) that petitioner is the beneficiary of the above-mentioned forged document and therefore, a direct nexus between DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-16552 of 2026 5 the commission of offence and the petitioner stands proved in the present case; and v) that by custodial interrogation of the petitioner the role played by the various persons, involved in creation of above said documents is necessary to be figured out. 12. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail, and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the above said benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 13. With regard to such relief, 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 that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above-mentioned 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 above said 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. 15. Similarly, in the case of ‘Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-16552 of 2026 6 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 of India, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 16. 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; and 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. 17. 17. Taking into consideration the entire fact-situation and the above discussed principles, it is hereby held that in order to dig out truth behind the above-mentioned chain of events, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-16552 of 2026 7 of paramount importance in the present case. If the valuable right of custodial interrogation, available to the Investigating Agency, is denied in the instant case, it may result into miscarriage of justice, as the Investigating Agency may not be able to find out truth behind the incident. 18. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above- mentioned factors, it is hereby observed that instant case is not a case wherein it may be observed that there is scope for excising extraordinary jurisdiction to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In my opinion, the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, accordingly. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 08, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document