JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.195 dated 26.08.2025 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, at Police Station Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner forged his date of birth in his matriculation certificate from 10.03.1966 to 20.05.1979 to obtain a job with IRB. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed any such offence. He argued that the petitioner has been promoted as EASI Head Constable in Third IRB Sunaria, District Rohtak. He submitted that the complainant got registered the present FIR because of previous grudge. He further submitted that the only allegation against the pettioner is that he forged his date of birth in the matriculation certificate, whereas the said certificate is verified by the Board of School Education Haryana. He argued that the petitioner joined his duty in the year 2002 and the FIR in question was registered on 26.08.2025 i.e. after an unexplained delay of more than 23 years, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri, vide order dated 29.10.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, she has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. She argued that petitioner has committed fraud and forged his matriculation certificate by mentioning his date of birth as 20.05.1979 on the basis of fake documents whereas his correct date of birth is 19.03.1966. She further submits that departmental enquiry is also going on against the petitioner. She further argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter, to unearth the modus operandi of accused as well as to know if any other co-accused is also involved in the matter. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. As per the status report, the petitioner has committed fraud by joining IRB services on the basis of forged matriculation certificate. The investigation so far indicates prima facie requirement of a deeper probe. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to uncover the modus operandi and to know if any other accused is also involved in the matter or not. The events in entirety indicate towards the existence of a bigger syndicate indulging in criminal activities. The Court is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusations against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection to the petitioner, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine the seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter.

8. It