[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ravinder Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026

                     CRM-M-9298
                           9298-2026 (O&M)     8587                                1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
                                              CHANDIGARH


                     209                                       CRM
                                                               CRM-M-9298-2026 (O&M)
                                                              DATE OF DECISION : 23.04.2026
                                                                                      .2026


                     RAVINDER SHARMA


                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                                        VERSUS
                     STATE OF PUNJAB


                                                                                 .....RESPONDENT

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P
                                                      PARTAP SINGH


                     Present :    Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab
                                                            Punjab.


                     SURYA PARTAP
                           P      SINGH, J.

This petition for pre-arrest arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the

petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. No.139

dated 11.06.2025, 11.06.2025, for the commission of of offence fence punishable under Sections Section

419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B B of Indian Penal Code ion Mandi

Gobindgarh District Fatehgarh Sahib. Gobindgarh,

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of

'Kashmir Kashmir Giri', Giri' hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was

alleged by the complainant complainan that 'Mittul ul Gupta' Gupta',, who had created fake firms

in the name of son of 'Rajan Giri', Giri', had entered into number of fake

CRM-M-9298

transactions, running into crores of rupees rupees, shown in the abovementioned

firms for the purpose of claiming GST inputs. According to complainant, in

the same manner fake funds were created in the name of another person,

namely 'Soni Rishi', Rishi', who was in custody at the time of creation of fake

firms. As per complainant, the name of firm created in the name of the son

of complainant compla was 'Ganpati Jewellers' and the name of firm created in the

name of 'Soni Rishi' was 'M/s Neelkanth Enterprises'.

3. It was further alleged by the complainant that 'Mittul Gupta',

'Harsh Gupta', 'Ravinder Sharma' (the petitioner herein) and other

associates were influential persons, and that 'Ravinder Sharma' Sharma',, while using

Aadhaar Card No.8905-1643-6739 No.8905 6739 of 'Soni Rishi', executed a sale deed and

got it registered by impersonating hims himself as 'Soni Rishi',, and for the

registration of sale deed appeared before the Sub Sub-Registrar.

Registrar. As per

complainant, the abovementioned fact stands verified from the photograph

affixed on the sale deed. The complainant also alleged that the petitioner had

forged ged the signatures of 'Soni Rishi' on the abovementioned sale deed, who

at the abovementioned point of time was in custody. While claiming that by

impersonating himself as 'Soni Rishi' and executing the sale deed with

forged signatures, signatures the abovementioned offence has been committed by the

petitioner, the action was sought by the complainant.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to

abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case has been lodged and the

investigation taken up.

5. Heard.

CRM-M-9298

6. 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, in fact no offence,

whatsoever, has been committed by the petitioner,, and that otherwise also,

the allegation contained in the FIR does not amount to commission of

abovementioned offence. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel

for the petitioner has referred to the observations made by this Court in the th

cases of 'Nirbhai Singh & Ors. V/s State of Punjab' CRM CRM-M-6339-2013 2013 and

'Budh Ram V/s State of Haryana' 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 352.

7. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

also contended that the complainant is stranger to thee rights of 'Soni Rishi'

and therefore, at the instance of complainant, any FIR for the commission of

offence punishable under Sections 467/471 IPC should not have been

registered. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, simply by selling the

land belonging to another person cannot be treated as an offence under

Sections 420/467/471 IPC. In support of abovementioned arguments arguments,, the

learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the principles of law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ''Md.

Md. Ibrahim &

Ors. V/s State of Bihar & Anr.' 2010(2) Cri.L.J. 2223 2223.

8. The learned State Counsel has controverted the

abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the

present case there are very specific and categorical allegations against the

petitioner that he indulged in illegal activity of impersonating himself as petitioner,

'Soni Rishi', Rishi' and execute a sale deed by using Aadhaar Card of 'Soni Rishi'.

CRM-M-9298

As per learned State Counsel, since at the time of registration ooff sale deed,

the photograph of the vendor was clicked in the office of Sub Sub-Registrar Registrar, it

stands proved that it was the petitioner only only,, who executed the sale deed and

forged the signatures in the name of 'Soni Rishi'. The learned State Counsel

has further contended that since there are very specific and categorical

allegations duly supported with reliable evidence against the petitioner,, to allegations,

dig-out out the details of entire racket behind the commission of

abovementioned offence, offence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

necessary necessary.

9. The record has been perused carefully.

10. In the present case, at the very outset it is relevant to mention

here that there are allegations against the petitioner that he impersonated

himself as 'Soni Rishi' and executed the sale deed of the property belonging

to 'Soni Rishi'. As per allegations contained in the FIR, he had used the

Aadhaar Card of 'Soni Rishi' and forged his signatures. The

abovementioned act of the petitioner, prima facie facie, comes within the ambit of

Section 420 read with Sections 467/468/471 of IPC IPC.

11. It shall not be out of place to mention here that the principles of

law laid down in the cases of 'Nirbhai rbhai Singh', 'Budh Ram', and 'Md

Ibrahim' are not applicable to the instant case, as in the present case it is not

the allegation of the complainant that the property someone else has been

sold by the petitioner, petitioner by claiming himself to be the owner of tha thatt property.

Rather instant case is a case, wherein Soni Rishi's property has been sold by

impersonating himself to be the 'Soni Rishi'. Prima facie,, there is allegation

CRM-M-9298

that the petitioner had forged the signatures of 'Soni Rishi' on the sale deed,

and thus, s, it can't be said that no offence is made out out.

12. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is

settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect circumspect, while

exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be ggranted ranted

as a matter of routine.. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be

granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances

exist for the extraordinary remedy.

13. With regard to above,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282,

has 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.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned

case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of

judicial discretion depending upon the facts an and d 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 ce and may hamper the investigation.

15. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita

Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave

CRM-M-9298

Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble

Supreme reme 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 person accused of grave offence.

16. 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:

that:-

(i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and m must ust be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only.

(ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.

(iii) Where a legitimate case for th thee remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised.

17. It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial

interrogation is a valuable right of the Investigating Agency, and in the

present case, if such right is denied den to the Investigating Agency Agency, it is likely

to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a

proper headway and the Investigating Agency may not be able to collect the

requisite evidence.

CRM-M-9298

18. Taking into consideration the gravity of offence, which has

been allegedly committed by the petitioner petitioner, coupled with the fact that to fix

the role played by various other persons involved in the commission of

abovementioned offence of fraud and forgery custodial interrogation of the abovementioned

petitioner is required, it is hereby held that in the present case the petitioner