[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
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
of # 10652/1, Indra Colony, Street No.3, Rahon Road, Ludhiana was
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
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
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.
(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
