Baga vs State Of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J.(Oral)

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.386 dated 28.11.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 111, 340 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad (Annexure P-1).

The aforementioned FIR was registered on a letter dated 28.11.2025 of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Tohana, sent under the directions of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Tohana, who had inquired into a complaint made by one Shubh Kamal. In the inquiry, the copy of sale deed No.1050 dated 12.06.1998, produced for registration of sale deed No.3285 dated 29.11.2024, was found not to match the record of the Tehsil office, Tohana. The copy of sale deed No.1396 dated 28.09.1992, produced for registration of sale deed No.223 dated 23.04.2024, was likewise found not to be in consonance with the official record. Sale deed No.1050 had purportedly been executed by one Tara Chand, as General Power of Attorney of Bakshi Ram, in favour of the petitioner. On its strength, the petitioner transferred the land to his son, co-accused Bittu, vide sale deed No.3285. The FIR was registered against the petitioner and five others.

Co-accused Bittu was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide order dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereas the application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure P-4). Hence, the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has no role in the alleged offence. He has been arrayed as an accused only because he is the father of co-accused Bittu. The plot was transferred to Bittu by co-accused Surinder Kaur vide sale deed No.223 (Annexure P-7), and the mutation in favour of Bittu has also been sanctioned by the revenue authorities (Annexure P-8). There is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the dispute is purely civil in nature. Co-accused Bittu has been granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner has already joined the investigation in compliance with the order passed by this Court. All the documents are in the possession of the prosecution, and his custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the petition by referring to the status report dated 20.05.2026 filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tohana. As per the status report, the deed bearing No.1050 dated 12.06.1998 in the official record relates to a different land and different parties. Tara Chand joined the investigation on 22.12.2025 and denied having executed sale deed No.1050 in favour of the petitioner (Annexure R-1). The petitioner joined the investigation on 29.04.2026, but he did not cooperate in the same, as he failed to hand over the original sale deed No.1050 to the Investigating Officer, despite taking several opportunities from this Court for the said purpose. The production of the said sale deed is necessary for a proper investigation. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions at considerable length, besides going through the material placed on record.

At the outset, it may be noticed that vide order dated 27.04.2026, while issuing notice of motion, a coordinate Bench of this Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to his joining the investigation. The coordinate Bench prima facie observed that the petitioner was neither the beneficiary nor the signatory of the sale deed executed in favour of his son. These observations were made in the context of sale deed No.223 executed by Surinder Kaur in favour of Bittu. The order does not refer to sale deed No.1050 in favour of the petitioner, or to sale deed No.3285 executed by him, which were brought out in the status report filed later. The observations were, thus, tentative in nature. Vide order dated 08.09.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was ready to hand over the original sale deed to the Investigating Officer, consequent to which, the petitioner was granted one more opportunity to join the investigation and hand over the requisite sale deed. On 28.09.2026, learned State counsel stated that the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer, but did not hand over the original sale deed. Since then, he has availed several opportunities, but he has not done so.

Nothing has been placed on record to show that the original sale deed has been handed over to the Investigating Officer even now. Thus, despite enjoying interim protection for about six months, the petitioner has not fulfilled even the assurance given by his own counsel to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the importance of this document cannot be overlooked. The very basis of the FIR, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is that the copy of sale deed No.1050 produced at the time of registration of sale deed No.3285 dated 29.11.2024 is not in consonance with the official record. The petitioner is the vendee under the deed of 1998, and he is also the vendor who relied upon it to transfer the land to his son in the year 2024. As per the status report, the petitioner has stated before the police that the original deed was taken by his son (Annexure R-3), whereas his son has stated that his father knows about it (Annexure R-2). This stand is also at variance with the statement made on behalf of the petitioner before this Court on 08.09.2026. The genuineness of the deed cannot be verified without comparing its original with the official record. Moreso, if the same is genuine, its production could only have helped him.

This Court is not compelling him to produce any document. The production was offered by his own counsel and he was granted time only on that offer. The only question is whether a person who seeks the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, and who withholds the most vital document despite his own offer, deserves that relief?

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1114 upheld the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case of forged documents relating to land, observing as under:-

Similarly, in Pratibha Manchanda and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2023 INSC 612, where the original of an allegedly forged General Power of Attorney had not been recovered, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the anticipatory bail granted by this Court. It was held that joining the investigation under the protective umbrella of pre-arrest bail would render the exercise of eliciting the truth ineffective in such cases.

The plea of parity is also misconceived. As per the order at Annexure P-3, co-accused Bittu joined the investigation, and the Investigating Officer reported that his custodial interrogation was not required. As rightly noticed in the order at Annexure P-4, it is the earlier deed in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of which the land was transferred to Bittu, which is alleged to be forged. The interim protection granted to co-accused Surinder Kaur was only an interim arrangement, and it cannot help the petitioner, whose own conduct has to be examined. His position is, therefore, materially different from that of co-accused Bittu.

In view of the above discussion, the present petition is dismissed, and the interim order dated 27.04.2026 stands vacated. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.