217A In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-19603 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 Bansilal alias Bansi Lal ... 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, 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-19603 of 2026 2 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 petitioner is not the beneficiary of the allegedly forged documents, and that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he was a witness to the sale deed executed by ‘Subhash Jain’ in favour of ‘Suresh Kumar’ on 29.02.2012. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since there is no allegation that petitioner is the beneficiary of the above-mentioned allegedly forged document, or that he had identified a wrong person, no liability with regard to execution of forged power of attorney can be fastened upon the petitioner. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-19603 of 2026 3 7. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, the offence is triable by the court of Judicial Magistrate, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. 8. In response to above-mentioned arguments, it has been contended by the learned State counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, that in the present case one of the significant aspect to be taken into consideration is that, that the petitioner is signatory to the sale deed dated 29.02.2012 and the above-mentioned sale deed, shown to have been executed by ‘Subhash Jain, was not actually executed by ‘Subhash Jain’. With regard to above, it has been contended by the learned State counsel that in fact the person who executed the above-mentioned sale deed by projecting himself to be ‘Subhash Jain’ is ‘Subhash Sihag’. It has been further contended by the learned State counsel that the petitioner is the identifier of above named vendor, namely ‘Subhash Sihag’ (as ‘Subhash Jain’) and therefore, the petitioner is liable for the creation of above- mentioned forged document. 9. The record has been perused carefully. 10. 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 there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner that he identified a person known as ‘Subhash Sihag’ as ‘Subhash Jain’. Thus, the petitioner DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-19603 of 2026 4 facilitated the execution of sale deed in favour of ‘Suresh Kumar’; and ii) that the above named ‘Subhash Jain’ (alias ‘Subhash Sihag’) had executed the above-mentioned sale deed on the strength of a general power of attorney alleged to have been executed by ‘Khajanchi Lal’ in the year 2012, whereas ‘Khajanchi Lal’ had died in the year 1979. Thus, the above-mentioned general power of attorney by any stretch of imagination cannot be a genuine document; 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-19603 of 2026 5 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. 14. 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 of India, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 15. 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.10 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-19603 of 2026 6 438 should not be exercised. 16. In the light of above-mentioned principles of law, if the facts & circumstances of the present case are analyzed, it transpires that in the present case one of the important fact to be settled by the Investigating Agency is the circumstance in which the petitioner identified ‘Subhash Sihag’ as ‘Subhash Jain’. In my opinion, in order to ascertain the above- mentioned fact custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 17. In addition to above it is also relevant to mention here that in view of the large scale forgery, wherein several forged documents have been created, the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is very serious. 18. In the above-mentioned given fact-situation, in my opinion, if valuable right of custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, it may have a negative impact on the outcome of the investigation. Since no special circumstance exists in the given fact- situation which may render the petitioner entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, it is hereby held that, 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