Advocates Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocates for & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra (Special Leave 5 of 2024 & Anr.

Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocates Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocates Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocates for the complainant. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) SURYA P This petition for pre-arrest bail is filed by the arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 444 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.444 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. dated 09.12

09.12.2025, for the commission of of for the commission of offence punishable under Section fence punishable under Sections B, 419, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station 120-B, 419, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station B, 419, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station B, 419, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Civil Lines, District Hisar. Civil Lines, District Hisar.

#2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Gyan The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Gyan The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Gyan referred to as “complainant” only. It was Chand Goyal’, hereinafter being referred to as “complainant” only. It was referred to as “complainant” only. It was Chand Goyal’, hereinafter being CRM-M-36569 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 2 stated by the above named complainant that his maternal uncle, namely stated by the above named complainant that his maternal uncle, namely stated by the above named complainant that his maternal uncle, namely stated by the above named complainant that his maternal uncle, namely ‘Khajanchi Lal’ was owner of agricultural land situated in in District Hisar, ‘Khajanchi Lal’ was owner of agricultural land situated in in District Hisar, ‘Khajanchi Lal’ was owner of agricultural land situated in in District Hisar, ‘Khajanchi Lal’ was owner of agricultural land situated in in District Hisar, n that regard and that he had appointed the complainant as his attorney, and in that regard and that he had appointed the complainant as his attorney, and i and that he had appointed the complainant as his attorney, and i executed a general power of attorney in the year 1976. According to executed a general power of attorney in the year 1976. According to executed a general power of attorney in the year 1976. According to executed a general power of attorney in the year 1976. According to complainant although the payment for the purchase of above said land, in the complainant although the payment for the purchase of above said land, in the complainant although the payment for the purchase of above said land, in the complainant although the payment for the purchase of above said land, in the year 1967, was made by the father of the complainant, but the sale deed was year 1967, was made by the father of the complainant, but the sale deed was year 1967, was made by the father of the complainant, but the sale deed was year 1967, was made by the father of the complainant, but the sale deed was got executed in the name of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ and the above got executed in the n mentioned ame of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ and the above-mentioned property has been always looked after by the complainant being attorney of property has been always looked after by the complainant being attorney of property has been always looked after by the complainant being attorney of property has been always looked after by the complainant being attorney of ‘Khajanchi Lal’. ‘Khajanchi Lal’.

#3. The complainant further alleged that in the year 1979 The complainant further alleged that in the year 1979 The complainant further alleged that in the year 1979 hajanchi Lal’ ‘Khajanchi Lal’ passed away, and that after the death of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ ‘Khajanchi Lal’ passed away, and that after the death of ‘K ‘Khajanchi Lal’ passed away, and that after the death of ‘K three power of attorneys were forged by three persons, namely ‘Nihal Singh’ three power of attorneys were forged by three persons, namely ‘Nihal Singh’ three power of attorneys were forged by three persons, namely ‘Nihal Singh’ three power of attorneys were forged by three persons, namely ‘Nihal Singh’ in the year 2009, ‘Subhash Jain’ in the yer 2010 and ‘Jugal Kishore’ in the in the year 2009, ‘Subhash Jain’ in the yer 2010 and ‘Jugal Kishore’ in the in the year 2009, ‘Subhash Jain’ in the yer 2010 and ‘Jugal Kishore’ in the in the year 2009, ‘Subhash Jain’ in the yer 2010 and ‘Jugal Kishore’ in the mentioned three documents are year 2012. As per complainant all the above-mentioned three documents are year 2012. As per complainant all the above year 2012. As per complainant all the above ricated documents, and that on the basis of forged power of forged and fabricated documents, and that on the basis of forged power of ricated documents, and that on the basis of forged power of forged and fab attorney a part of the estate of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ has been sold by the attorney a part of the estate of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ has been sold by the attorney a part of the estate of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ has been sold by the attorney a part of the estate of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ has been sold by the fraudsters. In view of above, the complainant has sought for action against fraudsters. In view of above, the complainant has sought for action against fraudsters. In view of above, the complainant has sought for action against fraudsters. In view of above, the complainant has sought for action against mentioned the persons who were responsible for the execution of above-mentioned the persons who were responsible for the execution the persons who were responsible for the execution forged documents. forged documents.

#4. It is the case of the prosecution that in response to above- It is the case of the prosecution that in response to above It is the case of the prosecution that in response to above mentioned complaint, firstly the inquiry was conducted and thereafter, mentioned complaint, firstly the inquiry was conducted and thereafter, mentioned complaint, firstly the inquiry was conducted and thereafter, mentioned complaint, firstly the inquiry was conducted and thereafter, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

#5. Notice of motion. CRM-M-36569 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 3

#6. appears on Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana appears on Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby behalf of respondent dispensed with. dispensed with.

#7. Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant has been filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant has been filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the complainant has been filed . The same be taken on record. today. The same be taken on record.

#9. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is petitioner is not a beneficiary of any forged or fake document as alleged of any forged or fake document as alleged by the complainant, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present by the complainant, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present by the complainant, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present by the complainant, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that case. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that money, whatsoever, has been received by the petitioner. , whatsoever, has been received by the petitioner.

#10. rned counsel for the petitioner has In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has In addition to above, the lea also contended that otherwise also, in the present case the prosecution has also contended that otherwise also, in the present case the prosecution has also contended that otherwise also, in the present case the prosecution has also contended that otherwise also, in the present case the prosecution has been launched at the instance of one person, who has no interest in the been launched at the instance of one person, who has no interest in the been launched at the instance of one person, who has no interest in the been launched at the instance of one person, who has no interest in the property in question, and that legal heirs of the real owner of the property property in question, and that legal heirs of property in question, and that legal heirs of have not initiated any prosecution (or file have not initiated any prosecution against the or filed any complaint) against the petitioner or anybody else. petitioner or anybody else.

#11. , being assisted by learned counsel The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel , being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. for the complainant, It has has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the complainant been cont stand of for the complainant that this stand of the petitioner is not correct that he is not the beneficiary of the alleged the petitioner is not correct that he is not the beneficiary of the alleged the petitioner is not correct that he is not the beneficiary of the alleged the petitioner is not correct that he is not the beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transactions. While referring to a Civil Court decree dated fraudulent transactions. While referring to a Civil Court decree dated fraudulent transactions. While referring to a Civil Court decree dated fraudulent transactions. While referring to a Civil Court decree dated Baljeet Singh V/s Nirmala Devi & 09.09.2017, in the civil suit titled as ‘Baljeet Singh V/s Nirmala Devi & Baljeet Singh V/s Nirmala Devi & 09.09.2017 CRM-M-36569 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 4 Ors.’, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant that the Ors.’, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant that the Ors.’, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant that the Ors.’, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is one of the beneficiary of the abovementioned fraudulent petitioner is one of the beneficiary of the abovementioned fraudulent petitioner is one of the beneficiary of the abovementioned fraudulent petitioner is one of the beneficiary of the abovementioned fraudulent transactions. transactions.

#13. The record has been perused carefully. The record has been perused carefully. of record shows that in the present case, following are A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a - decision:- i. that in the present case, there are very specific and categorical there are very specific and categorical allegations qua the fact that forged and fabricated General qua the fact that forged and fabricated General Power of Attorney of ‘Khajanchi Lal’ , who died in the year Khajanchi Lal’, who died in the year in the year 2010 in favour of ‘Subhash Jain’; 1979, was created in the year 2010 in favour of ‘Subhash Jain’; in the year 2010 in favour of ‘Subhash Jain’; ii. ii. the petitioner is one of is one of is one of the beneficiaries of the beneficiaries of the beneficiaries of abovementioned abovementioned , transactions transactions, as on as on strength of strength of abovementioned Power of Attorney, a Civil Court decree has abovementioned Power of Attorney, a Civil Court decree has abovementioned Power of Attorney, a Civil Court decree has been procured by the petitioner with regard to property in petitioner with regard to property in dispute; iii. iii. that allegations in the present case are of serious nature; and that allegations in the present case are iv. iv. le played by the petitioner in the that in order to find out the role played by the petitioner in the that in order to find out the ro commission of offence, his custodial interrogation is necessary; commission of offence, his custodial interrogation is necessary; commission of offence, his custodial interrogation is necessary;

#14. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect, while settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted exercising power for . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be as a matter of routine. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be as a matter of granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. exist for the extraordinary remedy. CRM-M-36569 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 5

#15. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in With regard to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, it has been held and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. anticipatory bail is a rule.

#16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of interim protection to the accused justice and may hamper the investigation. justice and may hamper the investigation. justice and may hamper the investigation.

#17. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave 5 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble 5 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Petition (Criminal) No. 1025 Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble indulgence of Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence.

#18. In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: CRM-M-36569 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 6 (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Proc edure Code, is of The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the (ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the patory bail. power to grant anticipatory bail. Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the (iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim investigating agency or a reasonable claim investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure to secure to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received incriminating material from information likely to be received incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised.

#19. the right of t shall not be out of place to mention here that the right of It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial interrogation is a valuable right custodial interrogation and in is a valuable right of the Investigating Agency, and in the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency the present case, if such right is den it is ied to the Investigating Agency, it is may not take a likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway and the Investigating Agency proper headway may not be able to collect the and the Investigating Agency may not be able to collect the quisite evidence. requisite evidence.

#20. Considering the above-discussed facts discussed facts & circumstances, and also the relevant laws, it the relevant laws, it is hereby observed that no ground exists for observed that no ground exists for by according invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner, by according invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner him the benefit of pre benefit of pre-arrest bail. Thus, present , it is hereby held that the present petition being being devoid of merits deserve hereby deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed, accordingly. dismissed CRM-M-36569 36569-2026(O&M) 8587 7

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

#22. Since Since Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending the main petition has been dismissed, pending the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. application .2026

09.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur SURYA PARTAP SINGH) (SURYA PA JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Whether reportable :Yes/No :Yes/No : Yes/No : Yes/No