315 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-16086 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 Anil Kumar Malik ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bindu Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Vikram Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Mr. Shailender Singh Gill, 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. 121 dated 14.5.2024, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 120-B, 419, 467, 468 & 471 of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’, Police Station New Colony Gurugram, District Gurugram, Haryana. 2. The above-mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Ruchika Malik’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that by forging the document, i.e. sale deed, which was executed by the General Power of Attorney of ‘Subhash’ and ‘Jai Parkash’, her property had been sold. While claiming that DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-16086 of 2026 2 the General Power of Attorney as well as the sale deed were forged documents, and that she had been subjected to cheating because of execution of above-mentioned document, the action against the petitioner, who, as General Power of Attorney holder of ‘Subhash’ and ‘Jai Parkash’, executed the sale deed, had been sought. 3. It is the case of prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed reply. The same be placed on record. 5. Heard. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case, although the FIR has been lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, but the facts of the case shows that the complainant is claiming herself to be the owner of property situated in khasra No. 851, whereas the sale deed in question pertains to khasra No. 820. According to learned counsel for the petitioner as the subject matter of the sale deed in question is different from the property of complainant, the complainant is not likely to suffer any loss because of execution of sale deed in question. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, the owner of khasra No. 820 has not filed any complaint with regard to sale deed executed by the petitioner. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-16086 of 2026 3 7. The learned State counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that in fact very smartly a fraud has been played by the petitioner who executed the sale deed in the name of his wife without payment of consideration, and that by mentioning khasra No. 820 efforts were made, by the petitioner, to grab the property of complainant which is situated within khasra No. 851. 8. The learned State counsel has controverted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that original documents are, yet, to be recovered. 9. In view of fact-situation of this case and the above mentioned arguments, in my opinion, following are the relevant factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration:- i) that the petitioner has already joined the investigation; ii) that as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh’ [Criminal Appeal No.939 of 2026, decided on 16.02.2026] the petitioner cannot be forced to assist the prosecuting agency in effecting recovery of incriminating material, which may harm his own interests or may defeat his right of defence; iii) that as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Sanjay Sharma v. State of Haryana’ [Criminal Appeal No.767 of 2026, decided on 09.02.2026], collection of evidence is the responsibility DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-16086 of 2026 4 of the Investigating Officer, and that an accused cannot be compelled to self-incriminate himself; iv) that the entire evidence to be collected by the Investigating Agency is documentary in nature; v) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; vi) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; vii) that trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and ix) that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 24.03.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 20, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document