CRM-M-31211-2026 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (213) CRM-M-31211-2026 (O & M) Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Balwant Singh Sahota and ors. …... Petitioners V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. N.K. Khepar, Advocate, for Mr. S.S. Tiwana, Advocate, for the complainant. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS (Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.117 dated 19.05.2026 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) BNS (Sections 406, 420, 419, 465, 468, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib. 2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Daljit Singh and reads as under:- To, SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib, Subject:- For taking action against 1. Balwant Singh Sahota, M. No. 94174-44776, s/o Puran Singh s/o Amolak Singh r/o House No. 1938, Phase -10, SAS Nagar, SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-31211-2026 (O & M) ::2:: Mohali, 2. Parwinder Singh s/o Gurdeep Singh r/o Dera Meer Miran, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, 3. Kamalpreet Singh s/o Khushwant Singh r/o Hamam Nagar, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, 4. Shiv Kumar s/o Krishan Ram r/o Village Talania, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, for preparing one forged and fictitious agreement to sell dated 23-05-2025 in order to grab my land 7 Kanal 11 Marla, situated at village Dera Meer Miran, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib and for filing false case, in the court, on the basis of that agreement to sell and after getting the investigation of the same done from some Senior Police Official and to register the case against them and other persons who are also involved in the same. Sir it is requested that 1. I Daljit Singh, aged about 43 years s/o Jagir Singh s/o Kartar Singh, am resident of Dera Meer Miran, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib and is peace living citizen. 2. That above Parwinder Singh s/o Gurdeep Singh is resident of my village and is working as property dealer. About one year ago, due to my domestic needs, I wanted to sell my property and Parwinder Singh was knowing regarding the same and at that time he had taken copy of my Aadhar Card and copy of Jamabandi of my land, by saying that he will get my land sold very soon and even he had brought one customer also, who wanted to purchase my land on very less rate and I refused to sell the same at low rate. He did not return back copies of my Aadhar Card and Jamabandi and told that he has forgotten, that where he has kept the same and if found, will return back to you but did not return back. Thereafter I told him that I do not want to sell my land and due to this Parwinder Singh started keeping grudge, in his mind, against me. 3. That neither I have entered into any agreement to sell, with anyone nor I have received any money SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-31211-2026 (O & M) ::3:: from anyone, regarding agreement to sell. Even I have no need to sell the land. 4. That above Parwinder Singh and Balwant Singh Sahota are very clever persons and they in connivance with each other, by using copy of my Aadhar Card, has prepared one forged and fictitious agreement to sell, of my land measuring 7 Kanal 11 Marla, by purchasing stamp papers of Rs.500/-, in favour of Balwant Singh Sahota r/o Mohali, in connivance with false witnesses and by impersonating me. They have put my forged and fictitious signatures on the same, while the signatures on the agreement to sell are not of mine. Neither I have signed any agreement to sell, for selling my land in favour of anyone nor have received the eamest money. Balwant Singh Sahota has prepared forged and fictitious agreement to sell dated 23-05-2025, in connivance with above three false witnesses namely Parwinder Singh, Kamalpreet Singh and Shiv Kumar, while I do not know anything regarding the agreement to sell. On the basis of this fictitious agreement to sell, deal of my land has been shown to be done for Rs.27,00,000/- and out of this, Rs.3,00,000/-has been shown to be in cash and cheque No. 00032 dated 23-05-2025 of Rs.24,00,000/- has been shown, while neither I have received Rs.3,00,000/- in cash nor has received any cheque of Rs. 24,00,000/- from Balwant Singh and this entire story is fictitious one and they have prepared forged and fictitious agreement to sell, in favour of Balwant Singh Sahota. I have never purchased the stamp paper for agreement to sell, while the accused have purchased the same by showing other person as to be Daljit Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that rate of land in our area is Rs.50,00,000/- per acre and why should I sell my land at this low rate, which they have mentioned in the forged and fictitious agreement to sell. 5. That above Parwinder Singh, Balwant Singh and witnesses, in SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-31211-2026 (O & M) ::4:: connivance with each other, have got filed civil suit for possession and executing the sale deed, from Balwant Singh, against me, while I have come to know regarding this civil suit from reliable sources and regarding this I made the inquiry and came to know regarding fictitious agreement to sell and all above said facts, so, by presenting the application, it is requested that thorough inquiry regarding preparing of forged and fictitious agreement to sell, by above persons, in connivance with each other, in order to grab my land be got conducted from some Higher Police Official and case regarding fraud be registered against them, Sd/-Daljit Singh. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case is based on documentary evidence. In fact, a civil suit has been instituted and all the documents are a part of the record in the said civil suit. As such, their custodial interrogation is not required. In fact, the FIR has been registered much after the filing of the civil suit. As the petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation, they be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel for the State and the counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, while referring to the reply dated 02.06.2026 which is already on record, contend that as per the FSL report dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure R-1), the agreement to sell 23.05.2025 is a forged document. Petitioners No.2-Kamalpreet Singh and petitioner No.3-Shiv Kumar are witnesses to the said agreement to sell. Petitioner No.1-Balwant Singh Sahota is the beneficiary of the forged agreement to sell. As the SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-31211-2026 (O & M) ::5:: offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is certainly necessary and hence, they are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977’, has held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-31211-2026 (O & M) ::6:: very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” 7. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the accused persons/petitioners prepared a forged and fictitious agreement for the sale of the land of the complainant showing that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has been received by him in cash and Rs.24,00,000/- through a cheque. In fact, the complainant did not receive any amount. As per the FSL report dated SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-31211-2026 (O & M) ::7:: 18.12.2025 (Annexure R-1), the agreement to sell is a fabricated document. Further, there is no delay in the registration of the FIR. The civil suit was filed by the petitioner No.1-Balwant Singh Sahota on 13.06.2025 based on the alleged fabricated agreement to sell dated 23.05.2025. The complaint leading to the registration of the FIR is dated 24.06.2025 and the FIR came to be registered on 19.05.2026. 8. The relevant extract of the reply filed by way of an affidavit of Kulbir Singh Sandhu, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab is as under:- Role of the petitioners That the petitioners are directly connected with the preparation, execution and use of the forged agreement to sell dated 23-05- 2025. The specific role of each petitioner is as under: 1) Role of Balwant Singh Sahota - petitioner no. 1 Balwant Singh Sahota is the beneficiary of the forged agreement to sell dated 23-05-2025. The said agreement was prepared in his favour regarding the land measuring 7 Kanals 11 Marlas of complainant Daljit Singh, although the complainant had never agreed to sell the said land to him and had never executed any such agreement. ii) Role of Kamalpreet Singh - petitioner no. 2 Kamalpreet Singh signed the forged agreement to sell dated 23-05-2025 as a witness. His signatures as a witness are material because the agreement falsely records that the complainant Daljit Singh had executed the agreement and had received Rs. 3 lakhs in cash in the presence of witnesses. iii) Role of Shiv Kumar - petitioner no. 3 SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-31211-2026 (O & M) ::8:: Shiv Kumar also signed the forged agreement to sell dated 23-05-2025 as a witness. His role is similar and equally material, as he attested the forged document and thereby supported the false recital that complainant Daljit Singh had executed the agreement and received consideration iv) Corroboration from FSL report The role of the petitioners is further corroborated by the report (Annexure R1) of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Phase-IV, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The questioned signatures marked Q1 to Q3 appearing on the agreement to sell dated 23- 05-2025 were compared with the admitted signatures marked A1 to A10 and specimen signatures marked S1 to S51 of complainant Daljit Singh. The FSL report opined that the person who wrote the admitted and specimen signatures of Daljit Singh did not write the questioned signatures appearing on the agreement to sell. The report further opined that the divergences in writing habits are significant and are not due to natural variation or intended disguise, but due to different authorship. Thus, the scientific report clearly corroborates the case of the prosecution that the signatures of complainant Daljit Singh on the agreement to sell dated 23-05-2025 were forged. v) Necessity of custodial interrogation Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to ascertain the complete manner in which the forged agreement was prepared, the source from where the stamp paper was purchased, the manner in which the documents of complainant Daljit Singh were misused, the role of each person in procuring and preparing the forged agreement, the details of the cheque mentioned in the agreement, and the circumstances in which the said forged document was used for filing court proceedings SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM-M-31211-2026 (O & M) ::9:: against the complainant. The petitioners are evading arrest and their custodial interrogation is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical conclusion. 9. As the offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is certainly necessary and therefore, the present petition stands dismissed. 10. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made. 11. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. July 23, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) sukhpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.24 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh