CRM-M-50302-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CRM-M-50302-2026 Decided on : 11.09.2026 Hansraj @ Tita . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present : Ms. Dhanika S. Bector, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, DAG Haryana. Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate for the complainant **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.217 dated 03.07.2025, under Sections 420, 448, 467, 468, 471, 427 IPC (corresponding Sections 318(4), 329(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 324(4) and 351 (1&2) of BNS), registered at Police Station Sushant Lok, District Gurugram. 2. As per case of the prosecution, there are total 07 accused namely – (i) Gaurav Kataria, (ii) Rahul Joshi, (iii) Sonia Joshi, (iv) Hansraj (petitioner herein) (v) Rohit Joshi, (vi) Mohit Kataria and (vii) Sub Registrar of Wazirabad (Gurugram). FIR in the present case was got registered in regard to execution of Sale Deed No. 21021 dated 06.02.2025, whereby a residential house belonging to the deceased owners-Ravinder Kumar Kakkar (who expired on 08.12.2019) and Smt. Santosh Kakkar (who expired on 14.01.2025) was sold. As per allegations, a fake General Power of Attorney was prepared for the execution of the sale deed in favour of purchaser of the house namely, Rahul REENA 2026.09.11 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-50302-2026 Joshi and Sonia Joshi. The property which was sold, is a residential house located in Sushant Lok-1, Gurugram. The role assigned to the petitioner is that he is the General Power of Attorney holder, purported to be executed by deceased-owners of the property namely, Ravinder Kakkar and Smt. Santosh Kakkar. Initially, the original General Power of Attorney (GPA No. 1521 dated 05.04.2019), was executed in favour of petitioner and thereupon, another GPA (i.e. GPA No. 460/111 dated 13.01.2025) was executed by the petitioner in favour of co-accused, Gaurav Kataria . On the basis of said GPA, Gaurav Kataria sold the residential property in favour of Rahul Joshi and Sonia Joshi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and petitioner is inside jail since 12.02.2026. Whether GPA alleged to be prepared in the name of the petitioner was prepared by the petitioner by taking some monetary benefit or it had been originally executed by the then owners, is a question to be decided by the trial court after adducing evidence before it. Moreover, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. Thus, prays for grant of concession of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant argue that the GPA has been forged. The factum of the execution of forged GPA in favour of the petitioner, in the Registrar Office, Noida was investigated upon registration of FIR and thereupon it was found that no such GPA was ever executed or registered in the office of Registrar Office, Noida. Therefore, petitioner does not deserve any concessional relief and pray for dismissal of the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant REENA 2026.09.11 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-50302-2026 material available on record with their able assistance. 6. Undisputedly, all the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and allegations need to be established more on the basis of documentary evidence. Petitioner has already remained in custody for a sufficient period i.e. for the last 06 months and 27 days. 7. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, and keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances, nature of allegations, period of incarceration already undergone, and the stage of trial, this Court deems it a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 8. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 9. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 10. Petition stands disposed of. Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 11, 2026 reena Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No REENA 2026.09.11 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document