[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-18294-
18294-2026
140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-18294-
18294-2026
Harjit Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Date of Decision:
Decision: April 27,
27, 2026
Date of Uploading: April 27,
27, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS
seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner
petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0070
dated 26.08.2024,
26.08.2024 registered for the offences
ences punishable under Section
Sections 177,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC (Section 120
120-B
B of IPC added later on)
[erstwhile Sections 212, 318(4), 336(2),, 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, 2023
(Section 61(2) of BNS added later on)],
on)] at Police Station Garhdiwal, District
Hoshiarpur.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that co-accused
accused Amarjit
Kaur had forged an order dated 30.04.2024. She allegedly affixed fake seals
and stamps of the Copying Agency as well as of the Judicial Magistrate First
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-18294-
18294-2026
Class, Dasuya, and presented the fabricated order before the Naib Tehsildar,
Garhdiwala. On the basis of this forged document, entry No.328 dated
13.06.2024 was incorporated into the jamabandi for the year 2018-19
pertaining to Village Raghwal, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The
revenue authorities, without verifying the authenticity of the said order,
proceeded to make the entry. Subsequently, Amarjit Kaur transferred the
disputed property in favour of Nirmal Kaur, wife of Ranjit Singh, and
mutation entry No.1577 dated 19.06.2024 was sanctioned. It was later
discovered that the original order dated 06.03.2023, passed by the Court of
Shri Jatinder Pal Singh Khurmi, the then Learned Additional District Judge,
Hoshiarpur, had been manipulated. A forged copy of this order was prepared
by affixing fake seals/stamps of the Examiner, Copying Agency, along with
a counterfeit round seal of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dasuya.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 26.11.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned
counsel has argued that the petitioner has been primarily implicated on the
basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Ranjit Singh, who
inturn has been nominated into the FIR in question on the basis of disclosure
statement made by another co-accused, namely, Gurpal Singh. Learned
counsel has submitted that the said disclosure is not tenable in law. Learned
counsel has further submitted that prime accused into the FIR in question is
Amarjit Kaur, who is the beneficiary. Learned counsel has submitted that the
said co-accused, namely, Amarjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh have been extended
the concession of regular bail, vide order dated 22.12.2025 passed by this
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-18294-
18294-2026
Court in CRM-
CRM-M-54771-
54771-2025 and CRM-
CRM-M-65593-
65593-2025.
2025 Thus, regular bail
is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has field short reply by way of an
affidavit dated 21.04.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Raising submissions in tandem with the said short reply, learned State
counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised
against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not
deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel also seeks
to place on record the custody certificate dated 26.04.2026, in the Court
today, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 26.11.2025, whereinafter, the
investigation was carried out and the challan qua petitioner has been
presented on 25.03.2026. Total 18 cited prosecution witnesses have been
cited and it is the conceded case before this Court that only 01 has been
examined till date. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable
issued, which shall essentially 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 petitioner absconding
from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.1. As per custody certificate dated 26.04.2026 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 04 months and 28 days.
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-18294-
18294-2026
6.2. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is not shown to be
involved in any other FIR(s), however, as per short reply by way of an
affidavit dated 21.04.2026, filed by the State, as stated aforesaid, the
petitioner is shown to be involved in one another FIR case. However, this
factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of
regular bail to the petitioner 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 petitioner as an
undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed.
allowed Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on
his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned
CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be
imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain
bound by the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary, during the trial.
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-
CRM-M-18294-
18294-2026
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the
trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station
and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior
permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner 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
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
April 27,
27, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/ judgment
