Harwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
1
:: ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(206/A)
CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
Date of decision: 12.11.2026
Harwinder Singh …... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Jasjit Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Parampreet Singh Bajwa, Advocate
for the complainant.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS
(Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in
case FIR No.166 dated 30.06.2026 under Sections 318(4), 329(3), 329(4),
303(2) and 62 BNS (Sections 420, 447, 448, 379, 511 IPC) and subsequently
added Sections 338, 338(3), 340(2) BNS (Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC)
registered at Police Station Haibowal, District Ludhiana.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Bala
Singh Kler and reads as under:-
Statement of Shri Bala Singh Kler, son of S. Gurcharan Singh,
resident of House No. 03, Kler House, Heera Nagar, Patiala.
Age about 68 years, Phone No. 89688-00077. I state that I am a
resident of the aforesaid address. That I am the owner in
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
2
:: ::
possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 22//15,
22//16/1, 17/1, 21//11, 12, 22//16, 21//19, 22, 21//20, 21//21,
25//1, 22//16/2, 17/2, 22//24, Khata No. 62/90 to 95, 64/99-100,
as per Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, situated in the village
of Chuharpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, by virtue of Sale
Deed Vasika No. 20741 dated 17-12-1996 and Vasika No.
14829 dated 07-04-1994, from the Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana,
and Mutation Nos. 632 and 618 have also been sanctioned in
my name. I have been in possession of the said land ever since I
purchased it. At that time, the land had many pits and mounds,
which I levelled to make it arable and also installed a borewell.
A generator and agricultural implements were also kept there,
and some labourers were employed for its upkeep. They were
permanently residing there and were rearing sheep and goats,
and they continue to live there to this day. Gurpreet Kaur,
Rajinder Kaur, daughters of Jagjit Singh, and Harwinder Singh,
son of Jagjit Singh, residents of House No. B-34-8982, Ranjodh
Park, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, prepared a forged Sale Deed
Vasika No. 20555 dated 17-02-1988. This was done in
collusion, based on a forged General Power of Attorney Vasika
No.87/4 dated 07-09-1984, allegedly in the name of Jagjit
Singh, who is their father. With the collusion of employees of the
Revenue Department, an attempt was made to get Mutation No.
2204 entered on 26-09-2012. Upon receiving timely
information, we prevented this from happening, and the said
mutation was rejected. However, after remaining quiet for some
time, Gurpreet Kaur and Rajinder Kaur again made a deal with
the officers of the Revenue Department by paying a hefty
amount and got the mutation sanctioned. Thereafter, as Jagjit
Singh had passed away, an inheritance Mutation No. 5575 was
entered in favour of Gurpreet Kaur, Rajinder Kaur (daughters),
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document
Malkit Kaur (widow), and Harwinder Singh (son) of Jagjit

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
3
:: ::
Singh. Since Malkit Kaur was also deceased, her share was
further mutated via inheritance Mutation No. 5886 in favour of
Gurpreet Kaur, Rajinder Kaur (daughters), and Harwinder
Singh (son) of Jagjit Singh. We received no information about
this, and the officials of the Revenue Department were paid a
large sum of money to assist them, who carried out this act by
flouting all laws and rules. I wish to bring to your notice that,
in fact, Gurpreet Kaur and Rajinder Kaur got forged registries
prepared in the name of their deceased father, S. Jagjit Singh,
and the Power of Attorney based on which this registry is
shown to have been executed is also forged. Gurpreet Kaur and
Rajinder Kaur, with great cunning and in collusion, got a
forged registry prepared in the name of their deceased father
and subsequently got the mutation entered in his name. When
we came to know about it in time, we did not let it happen. After
our repeated visits, the Patwari and Kanungo at that time
hastily rejected the mutation. But after some time, the same was
done again. Based on this forged registry, the mutation was
again sanctioned in the name of the deceased S. Jagjit Singh,
and subsequently, the inheritance mutations were also
sanctioned to make the entire case appear genuine. But the real
picture is that they, as part of a pre-planned conspiracy, first
got forged registries prepared in the name of their deceased
father, S. Jagjit Singh, and by deceiving the administration and
colluding with the Patwari, Kanungo, and Tehsildar, they got
these mutations sanctioned and then sat quietly. After some time
had passed since these mutations, a few days ago, with the help
of Tarvinder Singh, resident of village Malkpur, Jagraon, and
along with unidentified miscreants in 15 vehicles, they came to
my land situated at village Chuharpur with the intention of
taking possession and started a fight. Upon receiving
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document
information from the neighbours, I sent my associates to the

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
4
:: ::
spot, and the situation was brought under control. However,
while leaving, they broke the lock of the pucca room on my land
and looted my belongings, including a generator, water motor,
a cot, pipes, etc. But we did not allow them to take illegal
possession of the land. I am a law-abiding citizen. If such
injustice happens to an ordinary citizen, it raises a big question
mark on the administration. Firstly, the documents are openly
forged, for which we have concrete proof that we are attaching
herewith. Secondly, after bribing the Patwari, Kanungo, and
Tehsildar to get mutations entered based on these forged
documents, and then attempting to take illegal possession of the
land with the help of miscreants and committing robbery. In this
regard, legal action should be taken and a case should be
registered against the aforementioned Gurpreet Kaur, Rajinder
Kaur (daughters), Harwinder Singh (son) of late S. Jagjit
Singh, Talvinder Singh, and the unidentified persons in 15
vehicles, whom we can identify if we see them, and justice
should be delivered to me. There is a threat to the life and
property of myself, my family members, and relatives from these
individuals. Therefore, kindly take necessary action. The
statement has been dictated, heard, and is correct. Sd/- Shri
Bala Singh Kler.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the father
of the petitioner, namely Jagjit Singh, had purchased land measuring 16
Kanals 16 Marlas at village Chuharpur in the year 1988 and has since been
cultivating the same. After the death of Jagjit Singh in 2006, the petitioner
and his sisters have inherited the said land. The land claimed to be owned
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document
by the complainant is, in fact, a different parcel. The dispute, if any, is of a

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
5
:: ::
civil nature and no offence as alleged is made out. As the petitioner is ready
and willing to join the investigation, he is entitled to the concession of
anticipatory bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State and the counsel for the
complaint-respondent No.2, on the other hand, while referring to the reply
dated 15.09.2026 which is already on record, contend that during
investigation, it has been found that the sale deed/Vasika No.20555 dated
17.02.1988 whereby Jagjit Singh, the father of the petitioner-Harwinder
Singh is shown to have purchased the land from Harnam Kaur widow of
Sher Singh, is a forged document. The said forged sale deed is further based
on a forged GPA bearing Vasika No.87/4 dated 07.09.1984 executed in the
name of Jagjit Singh in connivance with revenue officials. As the offence is
prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical
conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sumitha Pradeep
Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977’, has held that
merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the
Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima
facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
6
:: ::
“It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already
been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the
Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for
custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where
Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we
are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted
discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court
praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to
the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the
complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its
discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a
very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed
by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused
should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail
matters, we have noticed one common argument being
canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and,
therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to
be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone
would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be
considered along with other grounds while deciding an
application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many
cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may
not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie
case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and
he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document
thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
7
:: ::
should consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial
interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail .”
7. The relevant extract of the State reply dated 15.09.2026 filed by
way of an affidavit of Jatinder Pal Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of
Police, West, Ludhiana is as under:-
11. That during investigation, letter No. 105-5-A/Police Station
Haibowal dated 16.07.2026 was addressed to the office of Sub-
Registrar (East), Ludhiana, for obtaining the certified copy of
Sale Deed/Vasika No. 20555 dated 17.02.1988. In response
thereto, the Sub-Registrar (East), Ludhiana, vide written report
dated 16.07.2026, reported that the serial/rank number
pertaining to Vasika No. 20555 dated 17.02.1988 was not
reflected in the computer record and the corresponding record
was not available in the office. In furtherance thereof,
investigation officer joined Chandraveer Singh, Record Keeper,
office of Sub-Registrar (East), Ludhiana, in the investigation
and recorded his statement under Section 180 BNSS.
12 That from the investigation conducted so far and the
evidence collected on the case file, it surfaced that Sale
Deed/Vasika No. 20555 dated 17.02.1988 had been forged and
used on the basis of a forged General Power of Attorney
bearing Vasika No. 87/4 dated 07.09.1984. executed in the
name of Jagjit Singh son of Mohan Singh, father of the
petitioner, in connivance with the concerned Revenue
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
8
:: ::
Department officials. Jagjit Singh has since expired and the
aforesaid document was not found in the concerned official
record. Consequently, on the basis of the evidence collected
during investigation, Sections 338, 336(3) and 340(2) BNS were
added in the present case on 16.07.2026.
XXXX XXXX XXXX
16. That it is respectfully submitted that the following
particulars pertaining to the present case are submitted
hereunder for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court:
(A) Role of the petitioner:
Petitioner, along with Gurpreet Kaur and Rajinder Kaur,
set up a forged Sale Deed bearing Vasika No.20555 dated
17.02.1988 on the basis of a forged General Power of
Attorney bearing Vasika No.87/4 dated 07.09.1984, in the
name of their father Jagjit Singh and on the strength
thereof initially attempted to get Mutation No.2204
sanctioned on 26.09.2012. Though the said mutation was
initially rejected on objection being raised by the
complainant, the mutation was subsequently got
sanctioned on the basis of the aforesaid documents. After
the death of Jagjit Singh, Mutation No.5575 was entered,
inter alia, in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, upon
the death of Malkit Kaur, her share was further mutated
vide Mutation No.5886 in favour of the petitioner and
others. The petitioner went to the land in dispute, along
with co-accused Talwinder Singh and several
unidentified persons who had arrived in about 15
vehicles, with the intention of taking possession, where a
quarrel ensued and while leaving, the lock of a room
situated on the land was broken and articles including a
generator, water motor, cot and pipes. were taken away.
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document
(B) Incriminating evidence collected against the petitioner:

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
9
:: ::
i) Statement of the complainant: The complainant has
specifically named the petitioner and attributed to him
participation in setting up and using the alleged forged
Sale Deed/GPA and deriving benefit therefrom through
the subsequent mutations. He has further specifically
attributed to the petitioner participation in the incident
concerning the attempt to take possession of the land
along with co-accused Talwinder Singh and other
unidentified persons.
ii) Official verification regarding Sale Deed/Vasika
No.20555: During investigation, letter
No.105-5-A/Police Station Haibowal dated 16.07.2026
was addressed to the office of Sub-Registrar (East),
Ludhiana for obtaining the certified copy of Sale
Deed/Vasika No.20555 dated 17.02.1988. The Sub-
Registrar (East), Ludhiana, vide written report dated
16.07.2026, reported that the serial/rank number
pertaining to the aforesaid Vasika was not reflected in the
computer record and the corresponding record was not
available in the office. Chandraveer Singh, Record
Keeper of the office of Sub-Registrar (East), Ludhiana,
was also joined in investigation and his statement under
Section 180 BNSS was recorded.
iii) Forged Sale Deed and General Power of Attorney:
From the investigation conducted so far and the evidence
collected on the case file, it surfaced that Sale
Deed/Vasika No.20555 dated 17.02.1988 had been forged
and used on the basis of a forged General Power of
Attorney bearing Vasika No.87/4 dated 07.09.1984,
executed in the name of Jagjit Singh son of Mohan
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document
Singh, father of the petitioner, in connivance with the

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
10
:: ::
concerned Revenue Department officials. The aforesaid
document was not found in the concerned official record.
Consequently, Sections 338, 336(3) and 340(2) BNS
were added in the present case on 16.07.2026.
iv) Mutations founded upon the disputed documents: The
material collected also reveals that an attempt was made
to enter Mutation No.2204 on 26.09.2012 on the basis of
the aforesaid documents and, though initially rejected
upon objection, the mutation was subsequently got
sanctioned. After the death of Jagjit Singh, Mutation
No.5575 was entered in favour of his alleged legal heirs
including the petitioner and, after the death of Malkit
Kaur, her share was further mutated vide Mutation
No.5886 in favour of Gurpreet Kaur, Rajinder Kaur and
the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is a beneficiary of the
mutations founded upon the forged documents .
(C) Criminal antecedents of the petitioner:
As per the information received from the Investigating
Officer and on the basis of the record there is no other
FIR registered against the present petitioner apart than
FIR (Supra).
(D) Status of the trial:
The investigation of present case is in process and at
initial stage.
(E) Necessity of Custodial interrogation:
i) To ascertain the genesis and procurement of the forged
documents: The custodial interrogation of the petitioner
is required to ascertain the manner in which Sale
Deed/Vasika No.20555 dated 17.02.1988 and General
Power of Attorney bearing Vasika No.87/4 dated
07.09.1984 were the procured/used, particularly when
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document
corresponding document was not found in the concerned

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
11
:: ::
official record and the Sub-Registrar has reported that the
serial/rank number pertaining to the Sale Deed was not
reflected in the computer record.
ii) To ascertain the role of other persons involved:
Custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the
identity and role of the persons, including the concerned
Revenue Department officials, who facilitated the use of
the aforesaid documents and the sanctioning of the
mutations on their basis, and to unravel the complete
modus operandi adopted in the commission of the
offences.
To trace the complete chain relating to the mutations: The
petitioner is required to be interrogated regarding the
circumstances in which Mutation No.2204, after having
initially been. rejected, was subsequently got sanctioned
and how Mutation Nos.5575 and 5886 came to be
entered, thereby conferring benefit upon the petitioner
and the other persons concerned.
iv) To investigate the incident at the land and identify the
remaining accused: The petitioner is also required to be
interrogated regarding the incident wherein he, along
with co-accused Talwinder Singh and several
unidentified persons who had arrived in about 15
vehicles, attempted to take possession of the land. His
custodial interrogation is necessary for ascertaining the
identity and role of the unidentified persons and for
investigating the removal of the generator, water motor,
cot and pipes from the room situated on the land.
v) Non-cooperation with the investigation: Despite
issuance of notices under Section 35(3) BNSS, the
petitioner did not join the investigation. His non-
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document
cooperative conduct assumes significance when the

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
12
:: ::
investigation concerning the forged documents, their use,
the mutations obtained thereon and the involvement of
other persons is still in progress.
17. That in view of the specific role attributed to the petitioner,
the material collected during investigation regarding the forged
Sale Deed/Vasika No.20555 dated 17.02.1988 and forged
General Power of Attorney bearing Vasika No.87/4 dated
07.09.1984, the subsequent mutations from which the petitioner
derived benefit, the report of the Sub-Registrar (East),
Ludhiana regarding non-availability of the corresponding
official record, the allegations regarding the attempt to take
possession of the land along with co-accused and unidentified
persons and the failure of the petitioner to join the investigation
despite issuance of notices under Section 35(3) BNSS, his
custodial interrogation is necessary for carrying the
investigation to its logical conclusion and for ascertaining the
complete chain and involvement of the other persons
concerned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana,
after considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and
the requirement of custodial interrogation, declined the
concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.08.2026.
Therefore, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner and the present petition deserves to be
dismissed in the interest of justice.
8. From the evidence collected so far, it is apparent that the GPA
dated 07.09.1984 on the basis of which the sale deed dated 17.02.1988 has
been executed in favour of Jagjit Singh, the father of the petitioner-
Harwinder Singh are both forged documents. They have been forged and
fabricated by the petitioner and his co-accused. Prima facie, the offence
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document

CRM-M-48727-2026 (O & M)
13
:: ::
stands established against the petitioner and his co-accused. The custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain how and in what
manner were the forged documents created, to ascertain the role of the other
persons who conspired with the petitioner including revenue Department
officials, to trace the complete chain relating to the mutations and to
investigate the incident at the land as also to identify the remaining accused
who attempted to dispossess the complainant from the land in question.
9. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I
find no merits in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.
10. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this
order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial
Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led
before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.
11. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
November 12, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
sukhpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUKHPREET KAUR
2026.11.13 16:10
I agree to specified
portions of this document