Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Present:- Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

#1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated 03

26.01.2022 Police Station PS NRI, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC

#2. As per the allegations, the complainant Harjit Kaur was having five siblings. Her parents had died. Accused Narinder Singh and Avtar CRM-M No.28199 of 2026 -2- Singh, who are her brothers were residing at Ludhiana whereas her third brother Kulwant Singh was residing in Canada. Her father had left behind a property measuring 776 square yards. He had executed a Will qua 258 square yards out of the said property in favour of accused Kulwant Singh. However, Kulwant Singh sold more than his share in this property by taking undue advantage of the fact that mutations of inheritance of her father had not been sanctioned in favour of all his children. A dispute was going on between them in this regard. It was alleged that accused Kulwant Singh executed a general power of attorney in favour of the present petitioner who sold the aforementioned property further on the basis of fake and fabricated documents and affidavits purported to be sworn by the complainant and her sisters. By alleging that she had been cheated at the hands of the petitioner and and the co-accused and fraud was committed with her, she prayed for taking action in the matter.

#3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that accused Kulwant Singh and Avtar Singh in connivance with the petitioner and each other, had sold more than their share in the properties inherited by them from their father by executing a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner who was nominated as an accused was arrested. Investigation is still going on.

#4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 28.04.2026. CRM-M No.28199 of 2026 -3- He has been maliciously dragged into the dispute. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. The core allegations are of creating forged affidavits which are directed against co-accused Kulwant Singh and Avtar singh and not qua him. The case is based on documentary evidence which are already with the investigating agency or are with the co- accused and not with him. The ingredients for commission of the subject offences are not attracted qua him. His further incarceration will not serve any useful purpose. He has clean antecedents. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

#5. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as in connivance with the co-accused and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and by using a general power of attorney, he had sold the land of other co-sharers and had submitted forged documents before the revenue officer to get sanctioned the mutation of the said property. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

#7. This Court has considered the rival submissions. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences of cheating and forgery while acting as power of attorney holder of the co- accused and while sanctioning mutation of a property which is in dispute between the complainant and her brothers i.e. the co-accused. It is only CRM-M No.28199 of 2026 -4- on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any definite conclusion qua the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of subject offences can be drawn. The continued detention of the petitioner is not required nor it would serve any fruitful purpose. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. The investigation and trial will take considerable time. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre trial incarceration of an accused should not be a replica of post conviction sentencing. The detention prior to trial should not become punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

#8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No