IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Raj Singh Yadav ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of Decision: April 20, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 21, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.59 dated 09.03.2026 registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61 (2) BNS, at Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

2. The gravamen of the instant FIR reflects that it has been registered on a written application filed by the Joint Commissioner, MC, Faridabad, who in his complaint has alleged that there was an encroachment upon government land comprised in Khasra No.94//2, situated at Uncha Gaon, Ballabgarh. It is further alleged that co-accused of the petitioner namely Raj Kumar Yadav, without any authority had falsely represented himself to be an authorized agent of BSNL and, on that basis, submitted forged and fabricated authorization documents before the Municipal Corporation to procure creation of a Property Identification (PID) in the name of BSNL. It is further alleged that despite deficiencies in the application, the PID was created on the basis of such misrepresentation. Thereafter, in continuation of the said fraudulent design, the co-accused used the same forged documents before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ballabgarh and got executed a lease/sale deed dated 07.08.2025 in favour of the petitioner (herein), thereby attempting to create third-party rights over the said government land. The FIR further reveals that upon verification from BSNL, it was revealed that the co-accused namely Raj Kumar Yadav was never authorized by BSNL, and the alleged authorization letter was not validly issued and that the documents relied upon were forged. Upon these set of allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and was not even named in the FIR at the initial stage. It is argued that no specific role or overt act has been attributed to him and the entire allegations are against co-accused Raj Kumar Yadav. It is further argued that the only allegation against the petitioner is that a lease deed dated 07.08.2025 has been executed in his favour. He has further argued that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had any knowledge of the alleged forgery or fabrication of documents. It is further submitted that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, which has been given a criminal colour. Learned counsel further submits that the entire case is based on documentary evidence which is already in possession of the police and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner is serious in nature, pertain to preparation and use of forged documents to grab the government land. It is further contended that