Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspreet Singh Alias Jassa Alias Fake ... vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2026
CRM-M-2039-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
220
CRM-M-2039-2026
Date of decision : 22.04.2026
Date of uploading : 23.04.2026
Jaspreet Singh Alias Jassa Alias Fake Makhu Lal And Another
.............Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.0040 dated 18.02.2025 under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS of the IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.5, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
"Today, an order no. 50 dated 05.02.2025 of the Hon'ble Court Shri Shiv Mohan Garg, ASJ, Ludhiana is received in the Police Station, the contents of which are that from: Shiv Mohan Garg Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, To, The Station House Officer, Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana Sub: For conducting inquiry and taking necessary action against the fake surety. Memo, it is brought to your kind notice that in the case titled as State Vs. Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi & Ors. FIR No.291 dated 22.11.2021, U/s 379-B,411 and 34 IPC, P.S. Moti Nagar, the accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi son of Randhir Singh Son of Jagir Singh Resident JATIN of # 10652/1, Indra Colony, Street No.3, Rahon Road, Ludhiana was 2026.04.23 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2039-2026 -2- released on bail and he furnished personal bonds as well the surety bonds on 13.03.2022. One person namely Mekhu Lal S/o Budhu Singh, R/o Village Ladowal Stood surety for accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi above- mentioned. But when accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi became absent, notice was sent to the surety and then one Maiku Lal Son of Budhu Resident of Village Laddowal came present and stated that he has been Impersonated and his documents have been forged and fake Adhar Card was presented in his name. The photo of the surety on the surety bonds is not that of him. So it seems that actual Maiku Lal, Son of Budhu, Resident of Village Laddowal has not stood surety for accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and someone has forged the documents and has impersonated him. So you are directed to inquire into the matter and take necessary action in the matter against fake sureties under intimation to this Court. Sd/-Shiv Mohan Garg (Shiv Mohan Garg) Addl. Sessions Judge Ludhiana Enclosed:-1.Copies of the surety bonds.2. Aadhar Card submitted by alleged surety. Police proceedings: Today myself ASI was present in the Police Station then order No. 50 dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble court of Sh. Shiv Mohan Garg, ASJ, Ludhiana received in the Police Station and as per the order of Hon'ble court, the bail of Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi son of Randhir Singh son of Jagir Singh, resident of House No. 10652/1, Indira Colony Street No. 3, Rahe Road, Ludhiana who is accused of FIR No. 291 dated 22/11/2021 U/s 379-B, 411 of IPC Police Station Moti Nagar Ludhiana, was given by Mekhu Lal son of Budhu Singh, resident of village Ladewal, Ludhiana, who was verified by witness Kulwant Singh son of Gurdev Singh, resident of village Farla, Ludhiana. The original Mekhu Lal son of Budhu, resident of village Ladowal, Ludhiana, appeared in the Hon'ble Court and got recorded his statement that "He has been impersonated and his document has been forged and fake Adhar card was presented in his name. The photo of the surety on the surety bond is not that of him." As per order of Hon'ble court, the bail of Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi son of Randhir Singh son of Jagir Singh, resident of House No. 10652/1, Indira Colony Street No. 3, Rahe Road, Ludhiana who is accused of FIR No. 291 dated 22/11/2021 U/s 379-B, 411 of IPC Police Station Moti Nagar Ludhiana, was given by fake Mekhu Lal son of Budhu Singh, resident of village Ladewal, Ludhiana and Kulwant Singh son of Gurdev Singh has verified said fake Mekhu Lal as original Mekhu Lal. Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, fake Mekhu Lal son of Budhu Ram and Kulwant Singh son of Gurdev Singh, in connivance to each other, have committed forgery with the Hon'ble court, therefore offence under section 319(2),318(4)336(2), 338, 336(3),340(2),61 (2) of BNS 2023 is made out against Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, fake Mekhu Lal son of Budhu Ram and Kulwant Singh son of Gurdev Singh. Therefore, after register case under above said sections against the above said accused, as per the instructions of Station House Officer, Police Station, the original order along with copy of FIR will be handed over to ASI Subhash Chander No. 1529/Ludhiana, Incharge, Police Post Court Complex, Ludhiana for further investigation. Control room be intimated through wireless. Myself ASI busy in other government works. Sd/- Mohan Lal, ASI, Police Post Division No.5, Ludhiana dated 18.02.2025, within the premises Division No.5, Ludhiana at 6.10 PM. of Police."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been in custody since 18.04.2025. Learned counsel has further urged that the case in hand is primarily based on documentary evidence and, thus, there is no likelihood of the petitioners tampering with JATIN 2026.04.23 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2039-2026 -3- the evidence. Learned counsel has further argued that a total of 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 1 has been partly examined till date. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners have suffered incarceration for more than one year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petitions by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificates dated 22.04.2026 in Court, which are taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6. The petitioners were arrested on 18.04.2025, whereafter investigation was carried out and the challan stands presented on 16.05.2025. A total of 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only one has been partly examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that the culmination of the trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioners absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1 As per the custody certificates dated 22.04.2026 filed by learned State counsel, petitioner No. 1 has already undergone JATIN incarceration for a period of 1 year and 3 days, and petitioner No. 2 has 2026.04.23 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2039-2026 -4- undergone incarceration for a period of 1 year and 4 days and is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). As per the said custody certificate, the petitioners are stated to be involved in more cases. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioners in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioners as an undertrial are not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to the conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioners shall remain bound by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall not misuse the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or JATIN documentary, during the trial.2026.04.23 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2039-2026 -5-
(iii) The petitioners shall not absent themselves on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioners shall deposit their passports, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioners shall furnish their cellphone numbers to the Investigating Officer/SHO of the concerned Police Station and shall not change their cellphone numbers without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioners shall not, in any manner, try to delay the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioners.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
22.04.2026
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
JATIN
2026.04.23 09:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document