P&H HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Dera Lease Accused Who Joined Probe, As Mahant Admits Signing Disputed Power Of Attorney And IO Says Custody Isn't Needed.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 144 dated 29 May 2026, registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC, concerning alleged unauthorised lease transactions involving approximately 182 kanal 8 marla of religious and charitable property at Village Bunga Bhangala.

The transactions relied on a disputed General Power of Attorney (GPA) allegedly executed by Mahant Varunpal Singh in favour of Bikram Singh. The petitioner was stated to be a marginal witness to the GPA, and two lease deeds were executed in his favour.

The petitioner relied, among other matters, on the Mahant’s subsequent admission that he had executed the GPA and authorised the lease deeds. On 23 September 2026, the Court granted interim anticipatory bail, noting that the petitioner had joined the investigation and that the Investigating Officer did not require his custodial interrogation. At the final hearing, the State confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation; the Court made the interim protection absolute.

Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 governs the conditions subject to which a person granted anticipatory bail may be released; the Court made the petitioner’s protection subject to those conditions.

The FIR invoked Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC, but the Court did not determine the merits of those allegations at the bail stage.

The Court’s stated considerations included the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation, whether custodial interrogation was required, and the circumstances bearing on the disputed documentary material. No precedent is cited in the order.

The Court had earlier considered the Mahant’s admission concerning execution of the GPA, the petitioner’s participation in the investigation, and the Investigating Officer’s statement that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

It observed that the competing documents and their authenticity and legal effect required investigation and were not, by themselves, compelling grounds for custodial incarceration.

At the final hearing, the State confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation, while the complainant’s objections concerning the co-accused and the inquiry had already been addressed in the interim order. The Court therefore found no basis to withdraw the interim protection, while expressly refraining from commenting on the merits.

Pending petitions and miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.