IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Naresh Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Date of Uploading : 23.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sarun Hans, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. 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.303 dated 18.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 & 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to forged surety documents furnished before the Sessions Judge, Sirsa in connection with bail of accused Balkaran Singh. On the basis of directions issued by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa dated 16.07.2025 and communications received from the Naib Tehsildar, Bhuna (Fatehabad) and an application filed by Advocate Sh. Pradeep Singh Bajia, it was revealed that forged and fabricated surety documents were used for securing bail of accused Balkaran Singh. It has been alleged that accused Balkaran Singh was granted bail vide order dated 16.04.2025 pursuant to which bail bonds and surety bonds were furnished on 13.05.2025 in the name of one Laxman son of Kheta Ram. However, on verification by the revenue authorities, it was disclosed that the valuation report of the surety property was neither prepared by the Halqa Patwari nor verified by the Naib Tehsildar and the documents submitted were found to be fake. Furthermore, Sh. Pradeep Singh Bajia, Advocate informed the Court that his father Sh. Lachhman Singh Bajia son of late Sh. Kheta Ram had expired on 09.11.2024 and that an unknown person had impersonated his deceased father, forged his signatures and submitted false and fabricated land documents to stand surety for accused Balkaran Singh. In view of the said impersonation, forgery and use of fake land papers for misleading the Court and securing bail, the Court directed that the bail bonds, surety bonds and related documents be sent to the SHO, Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa, for taking necessary legal action. Accordingly, a case was registered for investigation into the offences relating to cheating, impersonation, forgery and use of forged documents, and the matter was forwarded to Police Post HUDA for further investigation. During the course of investigation, the involvement of the petitioner surfaced who is involved in preparation and used of forged public documents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to him. It is further argued that the alleged forged valuation report and Aadhaar card are not in the name of the petitioner and that no forensic, handwriting or documentary evidence connects the petitioner with any act of impersonation or forgery. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has neither stood surety nor appeared before the Court in the bail proceedings of the co-accused. Learned counsel asserts that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR are entirely baseless and devoid of any credible or cogent material. According to learned counsel, in the absence of substantive and incriminating material, the entire prosecution narrative is nothing but an abuse of process. According to learned counsel, the entire case rests upon documentary evidence which is already in possession of the investigating agency. Furthermore, no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is neither required nor warranted. On strength of aforesaid submissions, th