Anticipatory bail should not be granted in serious cases involving economic offences and document forgery where custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth a larger criminal conspiracy, as the court must balance individual liberty with the state's interest in conducting a fair and effective investigation.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J.(Oral)

By way of this common order, this Court proposes to decide the aforementioned two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), in case FIR No.370 dated 20.12.2022, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Ratia, District Fatehabad.

The gravamen of the FIR is that the complainant, namely Smt. Kiran Singla, wife of Sh. Subhash Kumar, resident of House No.58, New Town Ratia, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, who is the sole proprietor of a firm, namely, “M/s Ramprasad Vijendra Kumar” and owner of the residential house in question, alleged that the accused persons (petitioners herein in both the petitions), in connivance with each other, hatched a conspiracy to cheat her by preparing a false and fabricated agreement to sell dated 26.04.2022. As per the said agreement, it was falsely shown that the complainant had agreed to sell her house to accused Dinesh Kumar (petitioner in CRM-M-15060-2026) for a total consideration of ₹40,00,000/-, out of which ₹15,00,000/- was alleged to have been paid to her in cash. As per the complainant, the said agreement was purportedly prepared at Hisar whereas the residence of the complainant had been situated at Ratia, District Fatehabad and she never visited Hisar on 26.04.2022. The complainant has categorically denied having executed any such agreement or having received any amount. The complainant has further asserted that the signatures appearing on the said agreement were not hers and have been forged. In order to substantiate her claim, the disputed signatures were examined by an expert, who opined that the same do not match with the genuine signatures of the complainant. It has been further alleged that one of the co-accused (i.e. petitioner No.3 in CRM-M-16853-2026), being related to the complainant and having earlier access to her business premises and documents, had access to papers containing her signatures, which were subsequently misused. On the basis of such access, the accused persons (petitioner(s) herein) are alleged to have prepared the forged agreement and later projected it as a genuine document in judicial proceedings. The complainant has further alleged that the accused persons, by using the said forged agreement, attempted to create false rights over her property and to unlawfully extract money from her. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be registered and investigation ensued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner – Dinesh Kumar (in CRM-M-15060-2026) has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and has not committed any offence as alleged. Learned counsel has further iterated that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature arising out of an agreement to sell which is already the subject matter of a civil suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner against the complainant. According to learned counsel, the present FIR has been lodged as a counter-blast to the said civil proceedings with an oblique motive to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the suit. It has been further contended that the petitioner has, in fact, entered into an agreement and has already paid an amount of Rs.15.00 lacs towards part consideration and hence the allegations of forgery have been falsely leveled. Learned counsel has emphasized that the investigation has been conducted in a partial manner in order to favour the complainant. It has been further argued that the name of the petitioner has been falsely roped into the instant case without any supporting evidence or proper investigation. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and shall abide by any condition imposed by this Court in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. Furthermore, the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and a permanent