Pawan Kumar vs State Of Punjab

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

This petition for pre-arrest bail, is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.0247 dated 09.09.2025, Police Station City Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Sham Sunder’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that co-accused of the petitioner namely ‘Sonu Tiwari’ had entered into an agreement for sale of a piece of land admeasuring 400 square-yards situated in village Dhandari Kalan, District Ludhiana. According to complainant, with regard to above-mentioned piece of property, an agreement to sell was executed on 12.08.2023. The complainant further alleged that with regard to above-mentioned property by impersonating as owner of the property, the petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of wife of the complainant, on receipt of Rs.31,50,000/-.

It is case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

Notice of motion.

Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, the service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

Heard.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the contents of the FIR shows that it was the accused No.2, i.e. co-accused of the petitioner, who had entered into deal for sale of property with the complainant and not the petitioner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the co-accused of the petitioner namely ‘Sonu Tiwari’ had received the entire sale consideration, and thus, the petitioner is not the beneficiary of alleged fraudulent act.

In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in the present case, the petitioner himself is victim of circumstances as he was working in the office of co-accused ‘Sonu Tiwari’, who misused his dominating position and, by taking advantage of his status took the petitioner to the office of Registrar, where the sale deed was executed. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the document got executed from him.

The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State counsel that instant case is a case, wherein the revenue record shows that the petitioner was not owner of the property, and that contents of the sale deed executed in favour of wife of complainant shows that petitioner was signatory to the sale deed, as the vendor. According to learned State counsel, the photograph of the petitioner and his signatures are present on the sale deed, and thus, it stands prove that petitioner was responsible for the execution of sale deed by impersonation.

The record has been perused carefully.

It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has approached this Court for the concession of anticipatory bail, and it is settled principle of law that the above-mentioned concession is a discretion to be exercised by the Court in a judicious manner. With regard to circumstances in which the above-mentioned discretion should be exercised, the guidelines have been prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various judicial pronouncements. In this regard in the case of ‘Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282’, it has been observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 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 interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation.

Similarly, in the case of ‘Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024’, the Hon'ble 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 Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence.

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:-

It is pertinent to mention here that there is documentary evidence showing that petitioner was present in the office of Registrar and he projected himself to be owner of the property and signed the sale deed, as vendor of the property. As per usual working of Registrar office, the photographs of the vendor of the property was captured and pasted on the sale deed. Thus, the back of the sale deed shows that it was the petitioner, who had appeared before the Registrar as vendor of the property. In view of above involvement of the petitioner, in the commission of crime, is prima facie established. This fact cannot be ignored that in the present case there are allegations that a valuable security has been prepared by playing fraud and as per law, the above-mentioned offence is punishable with imprisonment for life.

Here it is also relevant to note that right of custodial interrogation of a suspect is a valuable right of the Investigating Agency and as per settled principles of law in ordinary circumstances, the above-mentioned right of the Investigating Agency should not be curtailed. In the present case no such circumstance exists which may lead to a conclusion that sufficient ground for curtailing the above-mentioned right of Investigating Agency exists.

Taking into consideration the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and the above-discussed principles of law, it is hereby observed that present case is not a fit case, wherein the discretion vested in this Court should be exercised in favour of petitioner. Thus, without commentating anything on the merits of the case while holding that there is no merit in the present petition, the present petition is hereby dismissed, accordingly.