IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 Gurpreet Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. H.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

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.05 dated 13.02.2026 registered under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station NRI, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused, forged the signatures of complainant and misappropriated the amount of her policy upon its maturity. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the alleged fraud. He argued that the alleged allegation of forgery is against co-accused Dilpreet Singh and not against the petitioner. He further submits that even if the contents of FIR are taken to be true, then also the only offence being made out is under section 336(2) and 340(2) of BNS which is bailable. He contends that the entire evidence in the present case is documentary in nature and is in possession of either the complainant or the investigating agency, hence, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and there is no apprehension that the petitioner would destroy or tamper with any evidence. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays that present petition be allowed.

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 Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated

23.02.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, he has vehemently 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. He argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner along with co-accused have received and misappropriated the amount of old policy of the complainant by forging her signatures on maturity and thereafter the petitioner and co-accused issued new policy with some amount of that maturity amount by forging signatures of the complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner is not only peripheral participant but principal architect of the conspiracy. He along with co-accused orchestrated a well- planned conspiracy. He further submitted 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; as well as to ascertain his exact role and to recover the amount involved in the alleged fraud. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is specifically named in the FIR and is alleged to have acted in connivance with the co-accused in misappropriating the maturity amount of the complainant’s policy by way of forged signatures. At this stage, the exact role of the petitioner is yet to be ascertained and requires thorough investigation, for which his custodial interrogation is stated to be necessary. The investigation