IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.205 CRM-M-20981-2026 Decided on : 14.05.2026 Shiva ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Sahil Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

***

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.20 dated 14.02.2026, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, at Police Station Sector 7, Panchkula.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner alongwith co-accused prepared forged experience certificate by forging the signatures and stamp of District Programme Officer. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and he has no concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that the present FIR is counter-blast to the FIR registered by the father of the petitioner against the officials of the department. He further contends that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, and his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency and shall fully cooperate with the investigation. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel while referring to the status report already filed, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He contends that the forged certificate was provided to candidate Shabana by charging a sum of Rs.12,000/- and the signatures on the said certificate are of the petitioner, therefore, he is required for custodial interrogation to find out as to how he had prepared forged certificate, forged signatures and stamp of Programme Officer and misused the same. Further, during investigation, statement of one witness namely Shinam (Para Legal Worker) was also recorded against the petitioner and co-accused. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve any concession from this Court.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record, it is evident that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he had forged certificate in lieu of monetary benefit. It is still to be investigated as to how the petitioner prepared forged signatures and stamp of Programme Officer and misused the same. Further, during investigation, statement of one witness namely Shinam (Para Legal Worker) was also recorded against the petitioner and co- accused. Serious allegations of cheating involving a substantial amount have been levelled against the petitioner. Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would not only impede effective investigation but may also embolden similar fraudulent activities. 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 of the petitioner is necessary for effective i