Baljit Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-54351 of 2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-54351 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Order:30.10.2026
Baljit Singh
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Harlove Rajput, Advocate and
Mr. Manjot Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aakash Yadav, AAG Punjab
assisted by ASI Satnam Singh.
Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate,
Mr. Chirag, Advocate and
Mr. Amanveer Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL , J. (oral)
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 144 dated
29.05.2026, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police
Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran. This is the first petition for
anticipatory bail.
2. While issuing notice of motion on 23.09.2026, following order
was passed:-
‘……..
2. Briefly stated, the criminal law was set into motion at the
REEMA SAINI
2026.10.30 18:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh
instance of the complainant, Raghbir Singh, in respect of land

CRM-M-54351 of 2026 (O&M) 2
measuring approximately 182 Kanal 8 Marla, situated at
Village Bunga Bhangala, District Tarn Taran. The gravamen
of the allegations is that the aforesaid land constitutes
religious and charitable property and, consequently, the
Mahants/caretakers thereof were not vested with any authority
to alienate, lease, transfer or otherwise deal with the same.
The principal accusation centres around General Power of
Attorney Deed No. 53 dated 20.07.2021, purportedly executed
by Mahant Varunpal Singh in favour of Bikram Singh, and the
consequential transactions allegedly undertaken pursuant
thereto.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned prosecution is founded upon an inquiry which was
not conducted in conformity with the specific directions
issued by this Court in CRWP-7528-2023, CWP-5128-2024
and CWP-28887-2024. It is contended that, despite the
mandate to afford hearing to the concerned parties, neither the
petitioner nor the principal, Mahant Varunpal Singh, was
served with notice, rendering the inquiry procedurally
deficient and violative of the principles of natural justice.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Mahant
Varunpal Singh has subsequently approached this Court in
CRM-M-52247-2026 seeking quashing of FIR No. 144 dated
29.05.2026, wherein he has categorically asserted that he
himself executed the General Power of Attorney and that the
document is not forged. It is argued that such categorical
admission strikes at the very substratum of the allegation of
fabrication, notwithstanding the existence of another
document bearing registration No.53 in the record of the Sub-
Registrar. It is further contended that this material
circumstance was not brought to the notice of this Court when
CRM-M-34131-2026 was decided on 21.07.2026 and,
therefore, warrants a fresh consideration of the petitioner's
claim for anticipatory bail.
3.2. Learned counsel further submits that once the execution
of the General Power of Attorney by Mahant Varunpal Singh
REEMA SAINI
2026.10.30 18:13
is admitted, the petitioner's subsequent act of entering into the
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-54351 of 2026 (O&M) 3
lease transaction pursuant thereto cannot, at this stage, be
divorced from the authority so conferred. The authority of
Mahant Varunpal Singh, being the Mahant of the Dera, to
manage its affairs and execute lease transactions is itself not
shown to have been annulled or otherwise interdicted. The
dispute, therefore, essentially concerns the validity and legal
effect of the underlying transaction, rather than any
demonstrable act of fabrication attributable to the petitioner.
3.3. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has already joined
the investigation and has made himself available to the
Investigating Agency. Significantly, the official representing
the Investigating Officer stated before the Additional Sessions
Judge that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
required. In these circumstances, continued custodial restraint
would serve no discernible investigative purpose. Learned
counsel, accordingly, submits that the petitioner has extended
full cooperation, the material allegations are substantially
founded upon documentary transactions, and no further
custodial interrogation is warranted; hence, the petitioner
deserves the concession of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant, opposes the present petition and submits that the
General Power of Attorney relied upon by the petitioners is
alleged to be forged and fabricated, and that the investigation
has disclosed the involvement of Mahant Varunpal Singh, co-
accused Bikram Singh, certain revenue officials and the
present petitioners in the alleged illegal lease transactions
concerning the property of Dera Banga Bhangala. It is
contended that the petitioners, Didar Singh and Bachittar
Singh, are beneficiaries of the lease deeds executed on the
strength of the disputed General Power of Attorney and that
the lease deeds, consequential revenue entries, official records
obtained from the Revenue Department and statements
recorded during investigation collectively disclose their prima
facie involvement in the alleged transactions.
4.1. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioners'
REEMA SAINI
2026.10.30 18:13
reliance upon the alleged admission of Mahant Varunpal
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-54351 of 2026 (O&M) 4
Singh regarding execution of the General Power of Attorney
does not, by itself, conclude the investigation, particularly
when the circumstances surrounding its registration,
authenticity, use and the consequential lease transactions
remain under investigation. The existence of another
document bearing a different registration number in the record
of the Sub-Registrar, according to the State, necessitates
verification of the competing documents and the
circumstances in which they came into existence. Such
disputed questions of fact and the evidentiary value of the
documents cannot appropriately be adjudicated at the stage of
consideration of anticipatory bail.
4.2. It is further submitted that the petitioners' individual roles
and the extent of their knowledge regarding the authority
under which the lease deeds were executed are required to be
ascertained during investigation. Mere joining of investigation
does not, by itself, foreclose the necessity of custodial
interrogation, particularly where the investigation concerns
multiple persons, documentary records and consequential
revenue transactions relating to property of a religious and
charitable institution.
4.3. Learned State counsel, accordingly, submits that the
nature and gravity of the allegations, the documentary and
revenue record involved, and the necessity of a fair and
comprehensive investigation constitute sufficient grounds for
declining the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
The apprehension regarding evasion of the process of law,
influencing of witnesses or interference with the documentary
evidence is also urged as an additional consideration. The
present petition is, therefore, prayed to be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
meticulous perusal of the paper-book and the material placed
on record, with their able assistance, this Court finds that the
circumstances obtaining in the present petition warrant
reconsideration of the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.
It is significant that, when CRM-M-34131-2026 was decided
REEMA SAINI
2026.10.30 18:13
on 21.07.2026, the subsequent admission of Mahant Varunpal
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-54351 of 2026 (O&M) 5
Singh regarding execution of the General Power of Attorney
and the authority conferred thereunder was not available for
consideration before this Court. The said circumstance
assumes significance in the present proceedings, particularly
when Mahant Varunpal Singh has now admitted that he had
authorised the attorney to execute the lease deeds. The
petitioner is stated to be a marginal witness to the General
Power of Attorney and two of the lease deeds were executed
in his favour.
5.1. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner has already
joined the investigation pursuant to the interim protection
granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran.
Significantly, a statement has been made on behalf of the
Investigating Officer before the Court that custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The impugned
order declining anticipatory bail proceeds, inter alia, on the
premise that the petitioner had failed to join the investigation
after withdrawal of the interim protection granted by this
Court. However, the said factual premise does not appear to
be correct, as the material on record indicates that the
petitioner, after availing the interim protection, did associate
himself with the investigation. This circumstance, therefore,
materially alters the factual position which prevailed when the
earlier prayer for bail was considered.
5.2. The case, at this stage, substantially rests upon
documentary material, including the General Power of
Attorney, the lease deeds and the corresponding records of the
Sub-Registrar and the Revenue Department. Mahant Varunpal
Singh has, in the proceedings now relied upon, admitted
execution of the General Power of Attorney and has asserted
that authority was conferred upon the attorney to execute the
lease deeds. The existence of another document bearing the
same registration number in the record of the Sub-Registrar
may raise an issue requiring verification; however, the legal
effect, authenticity and evidentiary value of the competing
documents are matters which would appropriately fall for
REEMA SAINI
2026.10.30 18:13
examination during investigation and, if necessary, at the
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-54351 of 2026 (O&M) 6
stage of trial. At the present stage, such disputed documentary
circumstances do not, by themselves, furnish a compelling
justification for custodial incarceration, particularly when the
Investigating Agency itself does not seek custodial
interrogation of the petitioner.
5.3. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, particularly
the subsequent admission of Mahant Varunpal Singh, the
petitioner's participation in the investigation, the incorrect
factual premise regarding his alleged non-joining of
investigation, and the categorical submission on behalf of the
Investigating Officer that his custodial interrogation is not
required, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner has made out a case for grant of interim protection.
5.4. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to join the
investigation within a
period of seven days from today and shall thereafter continue
to associate with the investigation as and when called upon to
do so by the Investigating Officer. In the event of his arrest, he
shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing
requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions
stipulated under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
6. List on 30.10.2026.
7. In the meanwhile, learned State counsel shall file a status
report/reply, if any, on or before the next date of hearing, with
an advance copy thereof to learned counsel for the opposite
side.
8. The Registry is directed to ensure that the matter is duly
reflected in the “Urgent List” on the next date of hearing.
3. Learned State counsel has filed status report and on instructions
from ASI Satnam Singh states that petitioner has joined investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant too has filed reply to the
REEMA SAINI
2026.10.30 18:13 petition for anticipatory bail. He opposes the same on the ground that
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh

CRM-M-54351 of 2026 (O&M) 7
anticipatory bail of co-accused Didar Singh and Bachittar Singh was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2026. The grounds raised by
the petitioner had already been considered while dealing with the prayer for
anticipatory bail of co-accused Didar Singh. He further submits that FIR was
registered after a detailed inquiry ordered by this Court. The inquiry report
was challenged by co-accused in a writ petition on the same grounds as
raised in the petition. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court,
therefore, petition for anticipatory bail too deserved to be dismissed.
5. Pleas raised by learned counsel for complainant have been dealt
with in the order dated 23.09.2026. Petitioner has joined investigation
pursuant to order of this Court dated 23.09.2026 and his further custodial
interrogation is not required. In the circumstances of the case but without
commenting on merits, the petition is allowed and order dated dated
23.09.2026, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, is made
absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
6. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE
30.10.2026
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
REEMA SAINI
2026.10.30 18:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
high court chandigarh