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.89 dated 18.07.2025 registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Division No.7, District Jalandhar.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner after forging General Power of Attorney of Manju Khera, got registered sale deed and cheated the complainant for a sum of Rs.18 lakhs. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that only general and vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. He further argued that name of the present petitioner has been dragged in the FIR solely on the ground that he was acting as a witness to the alleged agreement to sell, purportedly executed between Sarup (husband of the complainant) and Manpreet Singh. He further submitted that Sarup is the maternal uncle (Mama) of the present petitioner and he acted on his instructions in good faith. He further submits that the entire case is based on documentary evidence which are already with investigation agency. Hence, there is no apprehension that petitioner can tamper with the evidence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. 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, Jalandhar, vide order dated 23.10.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel 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 the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR. She argued that the petitioner is not only peripheral participant but principal architect of the conspiracy and his role goes beyond mere facilitating the transaction. She further argued that the petitioner in connivance with others orchestrated a well planned conspiracy to prepare, use and rely upon fabricated documents in order to cheat the complainant for her hard earned money. The entire sequence reflects pre-planned, organized and deliberate criminal act aimed at unlawfully obtaining financial gain. She further argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to unearth the modus operandi of accused and to recover the amount involved. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions made by learned State counsel and while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner has played an active role in the crime and, thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is specifically named in the FIR. He is alleged to have cheated the complainant for a sum of Rs.18 lakhs by forging General Power of Attorney of one Manju Khera. The allegations disclose deep rooted forgery, impersonation, conspiracy and cheatings of a significant magnitude requiring a full, fair and unhindered investigation. Thus, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to uncover the modus operandi and to recover the amount involved in the crime. While considering plea for grant of anticipatory bail, this 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 g