IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 15.05.2026 PRINCE KUMAR ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.5 dated 24.02.2026 registered under Sections 420, 120-B IPC (now Sections 318(4) & 61 BNS, 2023) and Sections 81 and 82 of the Registration Act at Police Station Punjab State Crime, Crime Wing, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, while posted as a Patwari, in connivance with other revenue officials and co-accused persons, facilitated the execution of certain sale deeds and mutation entries in the revenue record in respect of the property of late Rajinder Singh situated at village Lalton Kalan, Ludhiana, despite subsisting stay/status quo orders passed by the competent Civil Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence, as alleged, is made out against him. It is submitted that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature arising out of inheritance and mutation proceedings pertaining to the estate of late Rajinder Singh. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the status report by way of an affidavit of Mr. Rajinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Crime Police Station, SAS Nagar in Court, which is taken on record. He, while referring to the status report, submits that the petitioner was posted as Halka Patwari at the relevant time when the disputed rapat entries were made in the revenue record. It is submitted that despite being fully aware of the status quo order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the learned Civil Court, the petitioner knowingly and deliberately misused his official position and failed to seek any clarification or direction either from the Court or from superior revenue authorities. It is further submitted that rather acting upon the application of co- accused Rakhi Kwatra, the petitioner prepared and entered rapat No. 416 dated 02.07.2024, whereby land measuring 08 Kanal 02 Marla comprising Khasra Nos. 27//21/2, 20/1 and 22/1 was allegedly excluded from the purview of the Court’s stay order. Learned State counsel also submits that the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates the petitioner’s active participation in a larger criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons and prays for dismissal of this petition as his custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the relevant facts.

5. Mr. D.K. Mehta, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed the Vakalatnama in Court, which is taken on record. He also vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is apparent from the material placed before this Court that the petitioner, while posted as Patwari at the relevant time, was entrusted with the maintenance and sanctity of official revenue records. Despite the existence of a subsisting status quo order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the competent Civil Court, the petitioner is alleged to have proceeded to act in a manner contrary thereto, without seeking any clarification either from the Court concerned or from the competent superior revenue authorities. Rather, acting upon the application moved by co-accused Rakhi Kwatra, the petitioner allegedly prepared and entered rapat No. 416 dated 02.07.2024, whereby land measuring 08 Kanal 02 Marla comprising Khasra Nos. 27//21/2, 20/1 and 22/1 was sought to be excluded from the purview of the status quo order.

8. Moreover, t