CRM-M-24402- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (214) PAWAN KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. The 483 of Bharatiya grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 420 Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant Commissioner, Kurukshetra Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and fabricated matriculation examination certificate and mark had not cleared such examination. It was also allege sworn an affidavit taking false pleas and had got himself elected as such. The office of Deputy Commissioner had already conducted an inquiry and it was -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PAWAN KUMAR Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the complainant **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant-Sanjeev Kumar and forwarded by Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, alleging that the petitioner who was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kharindwa, District Kurukshetra had used a false and fabricated matriculation examination certificate and mark had not cleared such examination. It was also allege sworn an affidavit taking false pleas and had got himself elected as such. The office of Deputy Commissioner had already conducted an inquiry and it was IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24402-2026(O&M) Date of decision :17.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner , Advocate for the complainant filed by the petitioner under Section Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.64 dated 31.01.2025 , 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC at The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint Sanjeev Kumar and forwarded by Deputy alleging that the petitioner who was elected as Kharindwa, District Kurukshetra had used a false and fabricated matriculation examination certificate and mark-sheet though he had not cleared such examination. It was also alleged against him that he had sworn an affidavit taking false pleas and had got himself elected as such. The office of Deputy Commissioner had already conducted an inquiry and it was (O&M) 2026 filed by the petitioner under Section seeking 64 dated 31.01.2025 , 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC at The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint Sanjeev Kumar and forwarded by Deputy alleging that the petitioner who was elected as Kharindwa, District Kurukshetra had used a false sheet though he him that he had sworn an affidavit taking false pleas and had got himself elected as such. The office of Deputy Commissioner had already conducted an inquiry and it was AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.17 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24402- reported that the petitioner could not prove the genuineness of his matricul examination mark Sarpanch with immediate effect. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The prayer made by the petitioner for pre Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner was arrested on 05.01.2026. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and nominated 02 more persons as additional accused. Investigation qua him now stands concluded. 4. It is ar falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would no are triable by Magistrate. He has been acquitted in other cases as registered against him and cannot be denied benefit of bail due to that reason. It is, thus, argued that the petitioner deserves to be re 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 he not only prepared false and fabricated document to be elected as Sarpanch but before this Court also he had relied upon the same false document by taking false pleas. The trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any -2026 (O&M) 2 reported that the petitioner could not prove the genuineness of his matricul examination mark-sheet. He was ordered to be removed from the post of Sarpanch with immediate effect. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The prayer made by the petitioner for pre-arrest bail had been declined Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner was arrested on 05.01.2026. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and nominated 02 more persons as additional accused. Investigation qua him now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He has been acquitted in other cases as registered against him and cannot be denied benefit of bail due to that reason. It is, thus, argued that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 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 he not only prepared false and fabricated document to be d as Sarpanch but before this Court also, he had relied upon the same false document by taking false pleas. The trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any reported that the petitioner could not prove the genuineness of his matriculation to be removed from the post of After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. arrest bail had been declined upto Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner was arrested on 05.01.2026. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and nominated 02 more persons as additional accused. Investigation qua him now gued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His t serve any useful purpose. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He has been acquitted in other cases as registered against him and cannot be denied benefit of bail due to that reason. It is, thus, leased on bail. 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 he not only prepared false and fabricated document to be in his anticipatory bail petition, he had relied upon the same false document by taking false pleas. The trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any ation to be removed from the post of After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. upto Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner was arrested on 05.01.2026. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and nominated 02 more persons as additional accused. Investigation qua him now gued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His t serve any useful purpose. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He has been acquitted in other cases as registered against him and cannot be denied benefit of bail due to that reason. It is, thus, 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 he not only prepared false and fabricated document to be in his anticipatory bail petition, he had relied upon the same false document by taking false pleas. The trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.17 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24402- undue delay in conclusion does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner in connivance with the co arrested, is alleged to have got prepared false and fabricated matriculation examination mark contested the election from the post of Sarpanch and was even appointed as such, however, he was removed from the said post by the Deputy Commissioner concerned after conducting inquiry into the matter. He had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court. The officials/officers of CBSE, Panchkula and Chandigarh had that the impugned mark the numbers which was shown to be given in the mark the name of the present petitioner. The allegations for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner nature as not only he got prepared false and fabricated documents but also used the same for the purpose of securing election to the post of village Sar thereby intending to cheat the Government also. The offence under Section 467 of IPC is punishable with life. The case is at its nascent stage. The material witnesses are yet to be examined. There is nothing on record to show that there would be any consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion -2026 (O&M) 3 undue delay in conclusion of the same. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner in connivance with the co arrested, is alleged to have got prepared false and fabricated matriculation examination mark-sheet and certificate and on the basis of the same contested the election from the post of Sarpanch and was even appointed as , he was removed from the said post by the Deputy Commissioner concerned after conducting inquiry into the matter. He had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court. The officials/officers Panchkula and Chandigarh had appeared before this Court to verify that the impugned mark-sheet had not been issued by the CBSE Panchkula and the numbers which was shown to be given in the mark the name of the present petitioner. The allegations for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner nature as not only he got prepared false and fabricated documents but also used the same for the purpose of securing election to the post of village Sar thereby intending to cheat the Government also. The offence under Section 467 of IPC is punishable with life. The case is at its nascent stage. The material witnesses are yet to be examined. There is nothing on record to show that there undue delay in the conclusion of the trial. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion of the same. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused, who are yet to be arrested, is alleged to have got prepared false and fabricated matriculation sheet and certificate and on the basis of the same, he contested the election from the post of Sarpanch and was even appointed as , he was removed from the said post by the Deputy Commissioner concerned after conducting inquiry into the matter. He had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court. The officials/officers appeared before this Court to verify sheet had not been issued by the CBSE Panchkula and the numbers which was shown to be given in the mark-sheet was never issued in the name of the present petitioner. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of subject offences as against the petitioner which are serious in nature as not only he got prepared false and fabricated documents but also used the same for the purpose of securing election to the post of village Sarpanch and thereby intending to cheat the Government also. The offence under Section 467 of IPC is punishable with life. The case is at its nascent stage. The material witnesses are yet to be examined. There is nothing on record to show that there undue delay in the conclusion of the trial. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion of the same. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel who are yet to be arrested, is alleged to have got prepared false and fabricated matriculation he contested the election from the post of Sarpanch and was even appointed as , he was removed from the said post by the Deputy Commissioner concerned after conducting inquiry into the matter. He had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court. The officials/officers appeared before this Court to verify sheet had not been issued by the CBSE Panchkula and sheet was never issued in ake out a case which are serious in nature as not only he got prepared false and fabricated documents but also used nd thereby intending to cheat the Government also. The offence under Section 467 of IPC is punishable with life. The case is at its nascent stage. The material witnesses are yet to be examined. There is nothing on record to show that there undue delay in the conclusion of the trial. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.17 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24402- that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismisse 8. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 17.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 4 that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail at this stage. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing dismissed pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail at this stage. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.17 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.