IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64004-2025 Date of decision: 11.02.2026 GAGAN SHARMA ALIAS RAHUL ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, 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.0093 dated 04.04.2022, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of BNS, at Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner along with co-accused got prepared forged and fabricated documents for getting a personal loan approved in favour of co-accused Sukhdev Raj. Hence the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. He submits that name of the petitioner came into light on the disclosure statement of the co- accused and apart from disclosure statement, there is no cogent evidence against the petitioner on record. He further submits that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the fraud and the amount has been disbursed into the bank account of the co-accused. He submits that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he had transferred pdf files from his Whatsapp to the bank employee. He submits that co-accused Sukhdev Raj has already been granted concession of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2023 in CRM-M-43807-2023. He submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel 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 qua the petitioner. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated

01.10.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, and he, while referring to the same, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He submits that the petitioner has played a crucial role in commission of the crime as all the forged documents of the co-accused Sukhdev Raj were prepared and submitted to the bank by the petitioner. Thus, learned State counsel prays that custodial interrogation of petitioner is required for effective investigation.

Learned State counsel 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 prosecution, it was the petitioner who has prepared all the fake documents of the co-accused Sukhdev Raj and submitted to the bank and got approved personal loan of Rs.12 lakhs. Further, the co-

accused has also admitted to have committed the offence in connivance with the present petitioner. The investigation prima facie indicates direct involvement of the petitioner in the said offence. This Court is sanguine of the fact that while considering the petition for anticipatory bail, it is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine and seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation o