IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rakesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of Decision: March 24, 2026 Date of Uploading: March 24, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sandeep Gorsi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.5 dated 22.01.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the instant FIR reflects that it emanates from a complaint lodged by the complainant-Gursimran Singh Dhillon, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), District Amritsar, pursuant to findings recorded in an official inquiry. It has been alleged that six accused persons, in connivance with certain officials, orchestrated the fraudulent registration of multiple sale deeds (Vasika Nos. 8739 to 8744) before the Sub Registrar on the basis of purported old conveyance deeds which, upon verification, were found to be non-existent in the official record maintained in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. It is alleged that neither the executants nor the vendees appeared before the Sub Registrar with original conveyance deeds, thereby indicating that the sale deeds were procured on the strength of forged and fabricated documents. The acts were allegedly facilitated by Ardeepak Singh, then Sale Clerk (now under suspension), who, without verifying the official record, processed the documents in conspiracy with other accused persons. Thereafter, an attempt was made to usurp government land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1489-1490 belonging to the Provincial Government. Although the then Sub Registrar, Manjit Singh, subsequently impounded the sale deeds upon detection of irregularities, the fraudulent registration had already been effected, necessitating civil proceedings for cancellation. Further allegations reveal that some of the accused had also instituted a writ petition claiming ownership over land situated at IDH Market; however, upon inspection, it was found that the said land does not correspond to the aforementioned khasra numbers and falls within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. This discrepancy reinforces the allegation that the accused, in collusion with officials, manipulated records and created forged documents to lay illegal claim over government land. Upon these set of allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It is contended that the petitioner has never committed any offence. It has further been contended there is an unexplained delay of about 3 years in reporting of the alleged offence to the police. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has not committed any forgery. Counsel submits that the petitioner was neither a beneficiary of the alleged sale deeds nor involved in their registration before the Sub Registrar and no specific overt act has been attributed to him in the FIR. Learned counsel has further contended that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the invest