Joginder Singh and another vs State of Haryana

Accused Ajeet and Suresh are the sons of his maternal uncle and accusedsh are the sons of his maternal uncle and accusedsh are the sons of his maternal uncle and accused Devender and Joginder (applicants) are the sons of accused Ajeet whoDevender and Joginder (applicants) are the sons of accused Ajeet whoDevender and Joginder (applicants) are the sons of accused Ajeet who conspired together and got transferred the land in question in favour ofconspired together and got transferred the land in question in favour ofconspired together and got transferred the land in question in favour of Ajeet by way of forged release deed got executed by him by imperAjeet by way of forged release deed got executed by him by impersonatingsonating the complainant. On 23.12.2025 the son of the complainant had gone tothe complainant. On 23.12.2025 the son of the complainant had gone tothe complainant. On 23.12.2025 the son of the complainant had gone to their fields for routine inspection when he came to know that accusedtheir fields for routine inspection when he came to know that accusedtheir fields for routine inspection when he came to know that accused persons had got transferred their land. When the matter was inquiredpersons had got transferred their land. When the matter was inquiredpersons had got transferred their land. When the matter was inquired from the revenue department, the complfrom the revenue department, the complainant came to know about theainant came to know about the release deed no. 10944 dated 27.01.2022. It also came to the notice of therelease deed no. 10944 dated 27.01.2022. It also came to the notice of therelease deed no. 10944 dated 27.01.2022. It also came to the notice of the complainant that on 03.102.2023 accused Ajeet further executed a releasecomplainant that on 03.102.2023 accused Ajeet further executed a releasecomplainant that on 03.102.2023 accused Ajeet further executed a release deed No. 5062 relinquishing this property in favour of his sons Joginderdeed No. 5062 relinquishing this property in favour of his sons Joginderdeed No. 5062 relinquishing this property in favour of his sons Joginder and Devender (applicants). When the complainant contacted the accusedevender (applicants). When the complainant contacted the accusedevender (applicants). When the complainant contacted the accused persons, they threatened him. He sought action against the accusedpersons, they threatened him. He sought action against the accusedpersons, they threatened him. He sought action against the accused persons.persons.persons. OnOnOn thethethe basisbasisbasis ofofof saidsaidsaid complaint,complaint,complaint, FIRFIRFIR waswaswas registeredregisteredregistered forforfor commission of offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 46commission of offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,7, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.”

LearnedLearned counselcounsel forfor thethe petitionerpetitioners has iterated that the petitionerpetitioners have been falsely implicated into the FIR in question asinto the FIR in question as neitherneither of them was present at the time when the Release Deed dated 27.01.2022of them was present at the time when the Release Deed dated 27.01.2022of them was present at the time when the Release Deed dated 27.01.2022of them was present at the time when the Release Deed dated 27.01.2022 was allegedly executewas allegedly executed. Learned counsel has further iteratedLearned counsel has further iterated that petitionerthat petitioner No.1No.1 waswas employed withwithwith HindustanHindustanHindustan NationalNationalNational GlassGlassGlass IndiaIndiaIndia LimitedLimited,Limited BahadurgarhBahadurgarh at the relevant time whereas petitioner No.2 was in Nepal. Itat the relevant time whereas petitioner No.2 was in Nepal. Itat the relevant time whereas petitioner No.2 was in Nepal. It has beenbeen further contended that the petitionerpetitioners have neither signed thegned the disputed Release Deeddisputed Release Deed nor identified the alleged impersonator before theor identified the alleged impersonator before theor identified the alleged impersonator before the Sub-Registrar. According to learned counsel, the FIR itself does not discloseRegistrar. According to learned counsel, the FIR itself does not discloseRegistrar. According to learned counsel, the FIR itself does not discloseRegistrar. According to learned counsel, the FIR itself does not disclose the identity of the person who allegedly impersonated the complainantthe identity of the person who allegedly impersonated the complainantthe identity of the person who allegedly impersonated the complainant andand there is no direct matno direct material available which would connect the petitionersavailable which would connect the petitionersavailable which would connect the petitioners with the alleged forgery.with the alleged forgery. Learned counsel hasLearned counsel has also pointed out that a civila civil suit regarding the Release Deed and thesuit regarding the Release Deed and thesuit regarding the Release Deed and the disputed property is alreadyproperty is already pending before the competent Civil Court.pending before the competent Civil Court.pending before the competent Civil Court. Moreover, the petitioners haveitioners have challenged the claimchallenged the claim of the complainantof the complainant regarding Mutation No.680 andregarding Mutation No.680 and have relied upon affidavits of certain family members and villagers tohave relied upon affidavits of certain family members and villagers tohave relied upon affidavits of certain family members and villagers tohave relied upon affidavits of certain family members and villagers to contend that the complainant hacontend that the complainant has wrongly described his parentage in thewrongly described his parentage in thewrongly described his parentage in the revenue record. It has been crevenue record. It has been contended that the real dispute is aboutontended that the real dispute is about the ownership and succession of the property and the criminal proceedings haveownership and succession of the property and the criminal proceedings haveownership and succession of the property and the criminal proceedings haveownership and succession of the property and the criminal proceedings have been initiated only to put pressure upon the petitioners in the civil litigation.been initiated only to put pressure upon the petitioners in the civil litigation.been initiated only to put pressure upon the petitioners in the civil litigation.been initiated only to put pressure upon the petitioners in the civil litigation. Furthermore,Furthermore, all the relevant documents are already avall the relevant documents are already available with theailable with the investigating agencyinvestigating agency & thus, there is no need for& thus, there is no need for the custodial interrogationcustodial interrogation of the petitionersof the petitioners. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioners. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice in caseabsconding from the process of justice in caseabsconding from the process of justice in case they are enlarged on preenlarged on pre-arrest bail.arrest bail. OnOn the strength of aforesaid submissionthe strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of instant, the grant of instant petition is entreated for.petition is entreated for.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitionergrant of anticipatory bail to the petitionergrant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by arguing that the allegationsby arguing that the allegations raised againstagainst them are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iteratedare serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iteratedare serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iterated that the material on record shows the connection of the petitioners with thematerial on record shows the connection of the petitioners with thematerial on record shows the connection of the petitioners with thematerial on record shows the connection of the petitioners with the property which was allegedly obtained through the forged Release Deed.property which was allegedly obtained through the forged Release Deed.property which was allegedly obtained through the forged Release Deed.property which was allegedly obtained through the forged Release Deed. Learned State hasLearned State has also pointed out that, althoughalthough the father of the petitionersthe father of the petitioners was the original beneficiary under the Release Deed dated 27.01.2022 butwas the original beneficiary under the Release Deed dated 27.01.2022 butwas the original beneficiary under the Release Deed dated 27.01.2022 butwas the original beneficiary under the Release Deed dated 27.01.2022 but the property was subsequently released in favour of the present petitioners.the property was subsequently released in favour of the present petitioners.the property was subsequently released in favour of the present petitioners.the property was subsequently released in favour of the present petitioners. The allegation is thus not merely that the petitioners have inherited theThe allegation is thus not merely that the petitioners have inherited theThe allegation is thus not merely that the petitioners have inherited theThe allegation is thus not merely that the petitioners have inherited the property after the death of their father but the prosecution case is that theroperty after the death of their father but the prosecution case is that theroperty after the death of their father but the prosecution case is that theroperty after the death of their father but the prosecution case is that the petitioners became beneficiaries of the property pursuant to a subsequentpetitioners became beneficiaries of the property pursuant to a subsequentpetitioners became beneficiaries of the property pursuant to a subsequentpetitioners became beneficiaries of the property pursuant to a subsequent transaction and are alleged to have acted in connivance with the othertransaction and are alleged to have acted in connivance with the othertransaction and are alleged to have acted in connivance with the othertransaction and are alleged to have acted in connivance with the other accused persons.accused persons. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for theayer has been made for the dismissaldismissal of the instant petitioninstant petition in order to facilitate effective investigation into thefacilitate effective investigation into thefacilitate effective investigation into the alleged offence.alleged offence.

LearnedLearnedLearned counselcounselcounsel appearingappearingappearing for the complainantfor the complainantfor the complainant hashashas raisedraisedraised submissions in tandem with the State counsel and has prayesubmissions in tandem with the State counsel and has prayesubmissions in tandem with the State counsel and has prayed for thed for the dismissal of the petition in hand.dismissal of the petition in hand.

I have heard the learned counsel for theI have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and haveand have gone through the available record of the case.gone through the available record of the case.gone through the available record of the case.

It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of theIt would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of theIt would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled asHon’ble Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. DeepakKishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. DeepakKishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak Yashwant Patil and anotherYashwant Patil and another passed in SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevantrelevant whereof reads as under:whereof reads as under: “74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation“74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation“74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumsintended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances intances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery ofwhich the accused may provide information leading to discovery ofwhich the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail maymaterial facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail maymaterial facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance betweenarrest bail is to strike a balance betweenarrest bail is to strike a balance between thethe individual'sindividual's rightright toto personalpersonal freedomfreedom andand thethe rightright ofof thethe investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so farinvestigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so farinvestigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery ofcollected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery ofcollected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State v. Anil Sharma [Statee v. Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma,v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039](1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as, the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is“6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is“6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-orientedoriented than questioning a suspect who isthan questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order underensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. Inof the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspecteda case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is ofperson is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and alsointerring many useful informations and alsointerring many useful informations and also materialsmaterialsmaterials whichwhichwhich wouldwouldwould havehavehave beenbeenbeen concealed.concealed.concealed. SuccessSuccessSuccess ininin suchsuchsuch interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is wellinterrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is wellinterrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a preprotected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he isarrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce toated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce toated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraughta mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraughta mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to thirdwith the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methodsdegree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argumentneed not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by allcan be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsibleaccused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsibleaccused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner andofficers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner andofficers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would notthat those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would notthat those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [AdriAdri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [AdriAdri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933]Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933]Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19)13, para 19) “19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to“19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to“19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detailsecure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detailsecure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regardingregardingregarding variousvariousvarious facetsfacetsfacets ofofof motive,motive,motive, preparation,preparation,preparation, commissioncommissioncommission andandand aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in thethe connection of other persons, if any, in thethe connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may providecrime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may providecrime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary toleading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary toleading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to procecurtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed withouted without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victimhindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victimhindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order inof the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order inof the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitablethe locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitablethe locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrestvestigation. The legality of the proposed arrestvestigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application underin an application under Section 438 of the Code. Theof the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope ofrole of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope ofrole of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. Thence by the court in the process of investigation is limited. Thence by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or withcourt ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or withcourt ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim orderthe arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim orderthe arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restrainingrestraining arrest,arrest, ifif passedpassed whilewhile dealingdealing wwithith anan applicationapplication under Section 438 ofofof thethethe CodeCodeCode willwillwill amountamountamount tototo interferenceinterferenceinterference ininin thethethe investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done underinvestigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of theof the Code.”

In SiddharamSiddharamSiddharam SatlingappaSatlingappaSatlingappa MhetreMhetreMhetre v.v.v. StateStateState ofofof MaharashtraMaharashtraMaharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC[Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC[Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514], the Supreme Court laid down the factors, the Supreme Court laid down the factors, the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealand parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. Iting with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exactwas held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exactwas held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is maderole of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is maderole of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against theand that the court must evaluate the available material against theand that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should alsocarefully. It was also held that the court should alsocarefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object ofconsider whether the accusations have been made only with the object ofconsider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

After referring to SiddharamSiddharam SatlingappaSatlingappa MhetreMhetre [Siddharam[Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraSatlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 :, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] andandand otherotherother judgmentsjudgmentsjudgments andandand observingobservingobserving thatthatthat anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, inanticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash SinghPrakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar,v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468](2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as, the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 386, para 19) “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence areanticipatory bail in a serious offence areanticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the courtrequired to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the courtrequired to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only inmust record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only inmust record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of thexceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view thate view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misusethe applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misusethe applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. GaneshD.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. GaneshD.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCv. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] ,C (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State ofState of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State ofState of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCCMaharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCCMaharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain AgAggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCCgarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)” Economic offences

Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, hasCrPC being an extraordinary remedy, hasCrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in casesto be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offenof economic offences.ces. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economicEconomic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economicEconomic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok KumarDirectorate of Enforcement v. Ashok KumarDirectorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of EnforcementJain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCCSCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510], it was held that in economic offences, the, it was held that in economic offences, the, it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.”accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.”

In SushilaSushilaSushila AgrawalAgrawalAgrawal andandand othersothersothers v.v.v. StateStateState (NCT(NCT(NCT ofofof Delhi)Delhi)Delhi) andandand Another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1ted in (2020) 5 SCC 1, Constitution Bench of this Court, Constitution Bench of this Court held that while considering an application for grant of preheld that while considering an application for grant of pre-arrest bail thearrest bail the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, theCourt has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, theCourt has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of invlikelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering withestigation, or tampering with evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:-“92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such“92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such“92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to theas the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to theas the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether toapplicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether toapplicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to gragrant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is ant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind ofmatter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind ofmatter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of specialspecialspecial conditionsconditionsconditions areareare tototo bebebe imposedimposedimposed (or(or(or notnotnot imposed)imposed)imposed) areareare

Indubitably, fromfrom thethe materialmaterial placedplaced oon record, seriousserious allegations have been levelled against the petitionerallegations have been levelled against the petitionerallegations have been levelled against the petitioners. The allegations in the. The allegations in the FIR ibid cannot be treated as a simple dispute relating tocannot be treated as a simple dispute relating tocannot be treated as a simple dispute relating to the ownership ofownership of land. As per theAs per the allegation, a registered Release Deeda registered Release Deed has been prepared andprepared and executedexecutedexecutedexecuted by impersonatingby impersonatingby impersonatingby impersonating thethethethe complainantcomplainantcomplainantcomplainant by usingby usingby usingby using aaaa forgedforgedforgedforged thumbthumbthumbthumb impression. The complainant specifically stated that heimpression. The complainant specifically stated that heimpression. The complainant specifically stated that he had never appearednever appeared beforebefore thethe SubSub-Registrar and had nevernever executedexecuted thethe document.document. TheThe complainant has further alleged thatcomplainant has further alleged that his Aadhaar detailshis Aadhaar details have been misusedmisused and another person was produced before the registering authority in hisand another person was produced before the registering authority in hisand another person was produced before the registering authority in hisand another person was produced before the registering authority in his place. In the considered opinion of this Court, tIn the considered opinion of this Court, tIn the considered opinion of this Court, these allegations constitutehese allegations constitute serious offences involving forgery, cheating, impersonation and useserious offences involving forgery, cheating, impersonation and useserious offences involving forgery, cheating, impersonation and use of aof a forged document.forged document. The allegations levelledlevelled against the petitioners is that aagainst the petitioners is that a valuable piece of land belonging to the complainant was transferred on thevaluable piece of land belonging to the complainant was transferred on thevaluable piece of land belonging to the complainant was transferred on thevaluable piece of land belonging to the complainant was transferred on the basisbasisbasisbasis ofofofof aaaa forgedforgedforgedforged ReleaseReleaseReleaseRelease DeedDeedDeedDeed bybybyby impersonatingimpersonatingimpersonatingimpersonating thethethethe complainant.complainant.complainant.complainant. Although the beneficiary under thAlthough the beneficiary under the said Release Deed was the father of thee said Release Deed was the father of thee said Release Deed was the father of the petitioners, it cannot be overlooked that the property was subsequentlypetitioners, it cannot be overlooked that the property was subsequentlypetitioners, it cannot be overlooked that the property was subsequentlypetitioners, it cannot be overlooked that the property was subsequently released in favour of the petitioners through another Release Deed executedreleased in favour of the petitioners through another Release Deed executedreleased in favour of the petitioners through another Release Deed executedreleased in favour of the petitioners through another Release Deed executed by their deceased father.by their deceased father.

The petitioners have sought to relThe petitioners have sought to rely upon their alleged absencey upon their alleged absence at the time of execution of first Release Deed.at the time of execution of first Release Deed.at the time of execution of first Release Deed.at the time of execution of first Release Deed. However, having regard toHowever, having regard toHowever, having regard toHowever, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the subsequent transfer of the property inthe nature of the allegations and the subsequent transfer of the property inthe nature of the allegations and the subsequent transfer of the property inthe nature of the allegations and the subsequent transfer of the property in their favour, their mere absence at the time of execution of the disputedtheir favour, their mere absence at the time of execution of the disputedtheir favour, their mere absence at the time of execution of the disputedtheir favour, their mere absence at the time of execution of the disputed Release Deed cannot, at this stage, be considered sufficient to rule out theirelease Deed cannot, at this stage, be considered sufficient to rule out theirelease Deed cannot, at this stage, be considered sufficient to rule out theirelease Deed cannot, at this stage, be considered sufficient to rule out their involvement.involvement.involvement.involvement. The prosecution has also alleged a conspiracy involving theThe prosecution has also alleged a conspiracy involving theThe prosecution has also alleged a conspiracy involving theThe prosecution has also alleged a conspiracy involving the petitioners and their actual role and knowledge, is a matter which requirepetitioners and their actual role and knowledge, is a matter which requirepetitioners and their actual role and knowledge, is a matter which requirepetitioners and their actual role and knowledge, is a matter which require deeper investigation.deeper investigation. At theAt the stage of consideration of plea for grant ofstage of consideration of plea for grant ofstage of consideration of plea for grant of anticipatoryanticipatoryanticipatoryanticipatory bail,bail,bail,bail, thisthisthisthis CourtCourtCourtCourt isisisis notnotnotnot requiredrequiredrequiredrequired totototo conductconductconductconduct aaaa detaileddetaileddetaileddetailed appreciation of evidence or to conclusively determine the guilt or innocenceappreciation of evidence or to conclusively determine the guilt or innocenceappreciation of evidence or to conclusively determine the guilt or innocenceappreciation of evidence or to conclusively determine the guilt or innocence of the petitionerof the petitioners. The plea regarding the pendency of the civilThe plea regarding the pendency of the civil suit does notdoes not merit acceptance at this stage, as the allegations, on their face, disclose themerit acceptance at this stage, as the allegations, on their face, disclose themerit acceptance at this stage, as the allegations, on their face, disclose themerit acceptance at this stage, as the allegations, on their face, disclose the commission of cognizable offencescommission of cognizable offences which requirewhich require thorough investigation.thorough investigation. Thehehe naturenaturenature andandand gravitygravitygravity ofofof thethethe offence,offence,offence, involvinginvolvinginvolving defraudingdefrauding thethe complainantcomplainant, necessitate a thorough investigation, which, at this stage,thorough investigation, which, at this stage,thorough investigation, which, at this stage, cannot be conducted without thecannot be conducted without the petitionerpetitioners being in custody. Moreover, noMoreover, no exceptionalexceptionalexceptionalexceptional orororor compellingcompellingcompellingcompelling circumstancecircumstancecircumstancecircumstance hashashashas beenbeenbeenbeen demonstrateddemonstrateddemonstrateddemonstrated whichwhichwhichwhich would warrant the grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offewould warrant the grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offewould warrant the grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offence.

The investigation is at a crucial stage and the role of eachThe investigation is at a crucial stage and the role of eachThe investigation is at a crucial stage and the role of each accused including the petitioneraccused including the petitioners requires thorough investigation. The grantrequires thorough investigation. The grantrequires thorough investigation. The grant of bail at this stage may impede the ongoing investigation and may alsoof bail at this stage may impede the ongoing investigation and may alsoof bail at this stage may impede the ongoing investigation and may alsoof bail at this stage may impede the ongoing investigation and may also adversely affect the efforts of theadversely affect the efforts of the investigating agency in unraveling theinvestigating agency in unraveling theinvestigating agency in unraveling the conspiracy. The nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to theconspiracy. The nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to theconspiracy. The nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to theconspiracy. The nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the petitionerpetitioners as also the factual matrix of theas also the factual matrix of the lis essentially lead to theessentially lead to the unequivocal conclusion that the petitionerunequivocal conclusion that the petitionerunequivocal conclusion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession ofncession of anticipatoryanticipatory bail.bail. ItItIt isisis pertinentpertinentpertinent tototo mentionmentionmention hereherehere thatthatthat thethethe reliefreliefrelief ofofof anticipatory bail is aimed at ensuring personal liberty of an individual.anticipatory bail is aimed at ensuring personal liberty of an individual.anticipatory bail is aimed at ensuring personal liberty of an individual.anticipatory bail is aimed at ensuring personal liberty of an individual. However, while deciding a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court hasHowever, while deciding a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court hasHowever, while deciding a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court hasHowever, while deciding a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to strike a balance bto strike a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protectingetween safeguarding individual rights and protectingetween safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest. The Court must also consider the gravity of the offence; thesocietal interest. The Court must also consider the gravity of the offence; thesocietal interest. The Court must also consider the gravity of the offence; thesocietal interest. The Court must also consider the gravity of the offence; the role attributed to the petitionerrole attributed to the petitioners; the impact on the Society and the need for; the impact on the Society and the need for; the impact on the Society and the need for fair and free investigation. The relief must not unduly hamper the rights offair and free investigation. The relief must not unduly hamper the rights offair and free investigation. The relief must not unduly hamper the rights offair and free investigation. The relief must not unduly hamper the rights of the investigating agency to conduct free, fair and impartial investigation.the investigating agency to conduct free, fair and impartial investigation.the investigating agency to conduct free, fair and impartial investigation. Atthe investigating agency to conduct free, fair and impartial investigation. this stage, there is no material on record to hold thathis stage, there is no material on record to hold thathis stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is notcase is not made out against the petitionermade out against the petitioners. The material which has come on record. The material which has come on record. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basisand preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basisand preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basisand preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail tofor the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail tofor the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail tofor the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitionerpetitioners, as it, as it, as it wouldwouldwould necessarily cause impedimentnecessarily cause impedimentnecessarily cause impediment ininin effectiveeffectiveeffective investigation. Ininvestigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri)State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri)State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)

In view of the seriousness of the allegationsseriousness of the allegations and the nature ofthe nature of the offencethe offence, it may not be possible for the investigating agency to unravelit may not be possible for the investigating agency to unravelit may not be possible for the investigating agency to unravel thethe entireentire truth if the petitioners are armedarmed withwith aa protectiveprotective order.order. MoreoverMoreover, it is the specific stand of the State that the custodial interrogation, it is the specific stand of the State that the custodial interrogation, it is the specific stand of the State that the custodial interrogation of the petitionersof the petitioners is necessary to take the investigation to its logical endnecessary to take the investigation to its logical end andand to conclude fair and meaningful investigation.to conclude fair and meaningful investigation.to conclude fair and meaningful investigation.

In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is oIn view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expressionNothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expressionNothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

Pending application(s), if any, shall alsoPending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE August 12,August 12, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No