Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M-54741 of 2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
230
CRM-M-54741-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.10.2026
Ramesh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON
Present:- Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate
Ms. Isha Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Ishnoor Bains, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG., Haryana.
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate
and Mr. Sourabh, Advocate
for the complainant.
*
NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (Oral)
1. This is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439
Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 0426 dated
14.07.2026 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3),
SANJAY KHAN
2026.10.31 12:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-54741 of 2026 (O&M) -2-
340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC), registered at Police
Station Civil Lines, District Karnal, Haryana.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that the complainant,
Surender Rajpal, had executed a General Power of Attorney dated
29.03.2019 (Annexure P-2), along with the petitioner, in favour of co-
accused Charan Singh and Sushil Kumar. It is alleged that the revenue
particulars pertaining to land situated in Village Mangalpur, District Karnal,
were subsequently interpolated in the said document, whereafter co-accused
Charan Singh executed a sale deed dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-3), in
favour of Narender Kumar and Khem Chand. During investigation, the
petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2026. The prosecution seeks to connect him
with the alleged forgery and criminal conspiracy on account of his
participation in the execution of the original General Power of Attorney and
the material collected during investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific act of
interpolation or forgery has been attributed to him. It is contended that the
petitioner was one of the executants of the General Power of Attorney dated
29.03.2019 (Annexure P-2), along with the complainant, and was neither an
attorney-holder nor an executant or beneficiary under the subsequent sale
deed dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel further submits that
the General Power of Attorney was cancelled vide Cancellation Deed No.
290 dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereas the subsequent sale deed was
cancelled vide Cancellation Deed No. 138 dated 17.07.2026 (Annexure P-5).
SANJAY KHAN
2026.10.31 12:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-54741 of 2026 (O&M) -3-
It is particularly emphasised that the latter cancellation deed records
restoration of the property to the original owner and that no mutation was
sanctioned pursuant to the disputed sale deed. Thus, according to learned
counsel, the transaction founded upon the disputed instrument no longer
subsists, and the property stands restored to its original owner.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant had
executed an agreement to sell dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), in favour of
the petitioner and others, upon receipt of earnest money amounting to Rs
10,00,000. It is contended that civil proceedings arising out of the
transaction had also been instituted and Civil Suit No. CS-1698-2026,
instituted by co-accused Narender Kumar, was dismissed as withdrawn on
22.07.2026 (Annexure P-8), pursuant to a compromise between the parties.
Learned counsel maintains that the present prosecution has been initiated to
pressurise the petitioner into relinquishing his contractual rights. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents, the investigation qua him
stands completed, the challan has been presented, and the material evidence
has substantially been secured by the investigating agency. It is pointed out
that the recovery attributed to the petitioner has already been effected and
his specimen signatures, handwriting and figures have also been obtained
during investigation. Thus, according to learned counsel, no further custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required. Learned counsel further contends
that the offences in question are triable by the learned Magistrate and,
considering the stage of the proceedings, the trial is likely to take
considerable time to conclude. It is, therefore, submitted that no useful
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody. The
SANJAY KHAN
2026.10.31 12:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-54741 of 2026 (O&M) -4-
petitioner is stated to be in custody since 17.07.2026 and, therefore, seeks
the concession of regular bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and
submits that the accusations involve manipulation of a registered document
and the subsequent execution of a sale deed concerning the complainant's
property. It is contended that the petitioner was involved in the alleged
conspiracy and that the gravity of the offences disentitles him to the
concession of regular bail.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner
was the principal conspirator behind the fraudulent manipulation of the
General Power of Attorney dated 29.03.2019 (Annexure P-2). It is
contended that co-accused Charan Singh and Sushil Kumar, in whose favour
the said instrument was executed, were employees of the petitioner, and that
the revenue particulars were subsequently interpolated therein without the
requisite authentication. Learned counsel further submits that, on the
strength of the manipulated document, co-accused Charan Singh executed
the sale deed dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-3), for a stated consideration of
Rs 60 lakhs, which was never paid to the complainant. The genuineness of
the agreement to sell dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) is also disputed on
account of the alleged overwriting and other irregularities appearing therein.
It is further contended that the disclosure statements of the co-accused
implicate the petitioner as the principal conspirator behind the transaction.
Learned counsel maintains that the subsequent cancellation of the disputed
documents and withdrawal of the civil suit cannot absolve the petitioner of
SANJAY KHAN
2026.10.31 12:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-54741 of 2026 (O&M) -5-
criminal liability arising from the alleged forgery and conspiracy.
Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is prayed for.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully examined the material on record.
8. A significant circumstance that weighs with this Court is the
distinction between the role attributed to the petitioner and that of co-
accused Charan Singh, who executed the disputed sale deed dated
25.10.2024 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner is sought to be connected with
the alleged offences on account of his participation in the execution of the
General Power of Attorney dated 29.03.2019 (Annexure P-2) and his alleged
involvement in the conspiracy, as sought to be established through the
material collected during investigation. However, the execution of the
original instrument and its alleged subsequent interpolation are distinct acts.
Mere participation in the execution of the former cannot, by itself,
conclusively establish involvement in the latter. Although the complainant
has placed reliance upon the disclosure statements of the co-accused to
connect the petitioner with the alleged conspiracy, the evidentiary value of
such material and the extent to which it establishes his participation are
matters to be examined during trial. Whether the petitioner had knowledge
of, consented to, or actively participated in the alleged manipulation or
conspiracy would necessarily require appreciation of evidence. The material
relied upon by the prosecution, including the recovery attributed to the
petitioner during investigation, would likewise have to be tested in
accordance with law. At the stage of consideration of bail, this Court is
neither required nor expected to undertake a detailed examination of the
SANJAY KHAN
2026.10.31 12:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-54741 of 2026 (O&M) -6-
evidence or record any conclusive finding regarding the petitioner's
culpability.
9. A perusal of the material placed on record reveals the
following circumstances relevant to the consideration of the present petition:
(i) that the petitioner has remained in custody since 17.07.2026;
(ii) that the petitioner is stated to have clean antecedents and is
not shown to be involved in any other criminal case;
(iii) that the investigation qua the petitioner stands completed
and the challan has been presented;
(iv) that the principal evidence consists of registered
instruments and revenue records, the recovery attributed to the
petitioner has already been effected, and his specimen
signatures, handwriting and figures have been obtained;
(v) that the petitioner is neither alleged to have executed the
subsequent sale deed dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-3), nor
shown to have been an attorney-holder or direct beneficiary
thereunder;
(vi) that the General Power of Attorney dated 29.03.2019
(Annexure P-2) and the subsequent sale deed dated 25.10.2024
(Annexure P-3) were cancelled on 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-4)
and 17.07.2026 (Annexure P-5), respectively, with the latter
cancellation deed recording restoration of the property to the
original owner;
(vii) that the offences in question are triable by the learned
Magistrate and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude;
and
(viii) that no specific material has been brought to the notice of
this Court, at this stage, to indicate that the petitioner, if
released on bail, is likely to abscond, tamper with the
prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses;
SANJAY KHAN
2026.10.31 12:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-54741 of 2026 (O&M) -7-
10. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
emphasised that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused
during trial and that pre-trial detention is not intended to operate as
punishment. The nature and gravity of the accusation, though relevant
considerations, must be examined alongside the other circumstances
governing the exercise of judicial discretion in matters of bail.
11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court is conscious of the seriousness of the accusations concerning
manipulation of a registered document and the consequent execution of a
sale deed. The contention advanced on behalf of the complainant that the
petitioner was the principal conspirator cannot be brushed aside merely
because the disputed instruments have subsequently been cancelled or the
civil proceedings withdrawn. Indeed, the existence of a civil dispute or the
subsequent cancellation of the documents does not, by itself, exclude
criminal liability where the ingredients of the alleged offences are otherwise
made out. Nevertheless, the precise role of the petitioner in the alleged
manipulation and conspiracy, particularly in view of the distinction noticed
in paragraph 8, remains a matter requiring appreciation of evidence during
trial. The cancellation of the disputed instruments, restoration of the property
to the original owner and withdrawal of Civil Suit No. CS-1698-2026 on
22.07.2026 (Annexure P-8), pursuant to a compromise between the parties,
are circumstances which may be taken into consideration for the limited
SANJAY KHAN
2026.10.31 12:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-54741 of 2026 (O&M) -8-
purpose of adjudicating the present prayer for bail, without treating them as
determinative of the criminal accusations.
12. Having considered the rival submissions and the material on
record, particularly the period of custody already undergone by the
petitioner, his clean antecedents, completion of investigation, presentation of
the challan, predominantly documentary nature of the evidence and the time
likely to be consumed in conclusion of the trial, this Court is of the
considered view that further detention of the petitioner is not warranted at
this stage. The apprehensions expressed by the prosecution and the
complainant can be adequately addressed through appropriate conditions
securing the petitioner’s presence during trial and preventing interference
with the administration of justice.
13. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Trial
Court concerned. The Court concerned shall impose such suitable and
stringent conditions as may be necessary to secure the petitioner’s presence
during trial, ensure that he does not evade the process of law, and prevent
him from tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the
witnesses.
14. It is made clear that in the event of misuse of the concession
of bail or violation of any condition imposed, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
SANJAY KHAN
2026.10.31 12:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-54741 of 2026 (O&M) -9-
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
30.10.2026 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
s.khan
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
SANJAY KHAN
2026.10.31 12:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document