Regular bail may be granted in cases involving allegations of forgery and fraud when the dispute is primarily civil in nature, parity with co-accused exists, and the accused has undergone significant custody without a likely speedy trial.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J

(Oral)

1. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0092 dated 26.04.2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 511 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.

2. As per the prosecution case, an application was moved by the complainant seeking registration of an FIR against the petitioner and other co-accused on the allegations that, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, they had committed fraud and forgery by executing forged documents including sale deeds and a tatima/registry during the pendency of civil litigation and in violation of stay and status quo orders passed by the competent Civil Courts at Ludhiana. It is alleged that on the basis of such forged and fabricated documents, the accused persons attempted to take illegal possession of the property of the complainant situated in village Sunet. The complainant has further alleged impersonation, stating that forged sale deeds were executed by projecting another person in place of the petitioner’s wife, Ramandeep Kaur, with the active involvement of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no prima- facie offence is made out from the bare perusal of the FIR. It is argued that the dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature relating to property, and the criminal proceedings have been initiated to pressurize the petitioner. It is further contended that the property in question is lawfully owned and possessed by the petitioner’s family and has been transferred through valid registered documents over time, ultimately in favour of the petitioner’s wife. Learned counsel submits that the alleged sale deeds relied upon by the complainant are false and fabricated and based on impersonation, and that no such transaction has been executed by the petitioner or his wife. It is also argued that no civil dispute is presently pending with regard to the said property, as earlier proceedings stand decided, and the allegations in the FIR are misleading and contrary to the actual record. It is thus prayed that the petitioner deserves the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by respondent No. 2 joined through Video Conferencing, has opposed the present bail application and submitted that the petitioner has played an active role in the commission of the offence. It is contended that the petitioner was instrumental in the preparation and execution of forged sale deeds and other documents by way of impersonation with the intention to grab the land of the complainant. It is further argued that there are as many as seven other FIRs registered against the petitioner and he is a habitual offender engaged in land grabbing activities and is running a land mafia. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, tried to usurp the property of the complainant by creating false and fabricated documents. However, it is fairly admitted that at present respondent No.2 is in possession of the land in question. On these grounds, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds merit in the present petition. It is no