CRM-M No. 34017 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the pe""oner. Mr. Anuj Garg, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Bawan Karanveer, Advocate and Mr. Viren Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present pe""on filed under Sec"on 482 of the Bhara"ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the pe""oner seeks grant of an"cipatory bail in FIR No.10 dated 13.01.2026 registered under Sec"ons 318(4), 329(3), 336(3), 338, 340, 351(2) and 62 of the Bhara"ya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Sta"on Narwana City, District Jind.

2. The allega"ons in the FIR arise out of a complaint made by the complainant claiming ownership and possession of a valuable immovable property situated at Water Works Road, Narwana. The prosecu"on case is that the property was fraudulently shown to have been transferred by preparing forged and fabricated documents, manipula"ng official records and crea"ng a false property ID. It is alleged that the accused persons, ac"ng in concert with each other and in connivance with certain officials, sought to usurp the property by portraying themselves as lawful owners despite having no "tle thereto.

3. Learned counsel for the pe""oner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the principal CRM-M-34017-2026 [2] allega"ons are against co-accused Ajay and that the pe""oner is neither the beneficiary of the alleged transac"on nor the recorded owner of the property in dispute. Learned counsel argues that the only circumstance relied upon by the prosecu"on is that a mobile number standing in the name of the pe""oner was used during the relevant period. According to the pe""oner, the said mobile number had been handed over to co- accused Ajay, who was working under him as a field worker/supervisor in connec"on with his business as a government contractor. It is further submiCed that co-accused Ajay has already been granted regular bail and that the pe""oner is ready to join inves"ga"on and cooperate with the inves"ga"ng agency. On these premises, grant of an"cipatory bail is sought.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the pe""on and submits that the pe""oner is not a peripheral par"cipant but is one of the principal architects of the alleged fraud. It is argued that the inves"ga"on has revealed the pe""oner's involvement right from the stage of crea"on of the disputed property ID "ll execu"on of the impugned transac"on. Learned counsel submits that the pe""oner's mobile number was used in the applica"on process for the property ID and was subsequently reflected in the documents pertaining to the transfer of the property. It is further submiCed that custodial interroga"on of the pe""oner is necessary to iden"fy the complete chain of conspirators, including any public officials involved in manipula"on of official records.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the par"es and perused the paper-book.

6. At this stage, the material collected during inves"ga"on prima facie indicates that the mobile number admiCedly standing in the name of CRM-M-34017-2026 [3] the pe""oner was used during crucial stages of the alleged transac"on. The prosecu"on specifically alleges that the said number was reflected in the applica"on rela"ng to the disputed property ID and was also associated with the subsequent transfer process. The explana"on sought to be offered by the pe""oner that the number was being used by co-accused Ajay cons"tutes a maCer of defence, the veracity whereof can be examined only aJer a thorough inves"ga"on and not while considering a pe""on for an"cipatory bail.

7. The conten"on that co-accused Ajay has been granted regular bail is equally of no avail. Parity is not an abstract principle and each accused has to be considered on the basis of his own role and the requirements of inves"ga"on. The prosecu"on case before this Court is that the pe""oner played a pivotal role in the execu"on of the alleged scheme and that the inves"ga"on has revealed his connec"on from the incep"on of the fraudulent transac"on. Therefore, the case of the pe""oner cannot be equated with that of a co-accused merely because the laCer has been granted regular bail aJer arrest.

8. The offences alleged are not confined to an individual act of chea"ng but pertain to an organised aCempt to manipulate public records and create false "tle documents in respect of immovable property. Allega"ons involving prepara"on of forged documents, tampering with official records and fraudulent transfer of valuable proper"es have serious ramifica"ons upon public confidence in the sanc"ty of public records and the property registra"on system.

9. The power to grant an"cipatory bail is an extraordinary discre"onary power and is not intended to shield persons against whom serious allega"ons requiring custodial interroga"on have emerged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where the inves"ga"on is CRM-M-34017-2026 [4] at a crucial stage and the custodial interroga"on of the accused appears necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy, iden"fy accomplices and recover relevant material, grant of an"cipatory bail may not be warranted.

10. In the present case, the inves"ga"on is s"ll in progress. The allega"ons suggest involvement of mul"ple persons and possible manipula"on of official records. The inves"ga"ng agency is required to ascertain the exact manner in which the property ID was created, iden"fy the role of each par"cipant, trace the prepara"on of the allegedly forged documents and determine whether any public officials were involved in facilita"ng the fraud. Such inves"ga"on would be seriously prejudiced if the pe""oner is granted the protec"ve umbrella of an"cipatory bail at this stage.

11. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allega"ons, the prima facie material connec"ng the pe""oner with the transac"on, the requirement of custodial interroga"on and the necessity of conduc"ng a free, fair and effec"ve inves"ga"on, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of an"cipatory bail. Consequently, the present pe""on is dismissed.

12. However, anything observed herein shall be construed only for the purpose of deciding the present pe""on and shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case during inves"ga"on or trial.

17.06.2026 Yogesh (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Yes/No Whether reportable:-