Subhash Chand Arora v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-3897-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-3897-2025
Reserved on: 06.03.2025
Pronounced on: 25.03.2025 Subhash Chand Arora
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Neeraj Sansaniwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Thakur, Advocate for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 21.04.2021 Sushant Lok, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & Gurugram 120-B PC 1.
The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.
2.
In paragraph 10 of the bail petition and para 15 of the status report, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No.
FIR No.
Date Offenses Police Station 18.10.2017 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC NIT Faridabad 31.12.2019 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Sushant Lok, Gurugram 31.12.2019 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Sushant Lok, Gurugram 31.12.2019 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Sushant Lok, Gurugram 23.01.2020 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Sushant Lok, Gurugram 17.09.2020 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Sadar Gurugram 11.04.2021 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC DLS, Sector 29, Gurugram 16.08.2020 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Sushant Lok, Distt.
Gurugram, Haryana 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, Sushant Lok, Distt.
ANJU RANI 2025.03.26 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
CRM-M-3897-2025 120B IPC Gurugram, Haryana 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Sushant Lok, Distt.
Gurugram, Haryana 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Sadar, Gurugram 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Sushant Lok, Gurugram 3.
The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
4.
The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 5.
Allegations against the petitioner and his role is mentioned in para 13 of the status report, which reads as follows:- "13. That the role of the petitioner Subhash Chand Arora in the present case is that he had affixed his signatures as attesting witness upon the Sale Deed No.7281 dated 26.07.2019, whereby the petitioner had identified the fake woman/impersonator as Raj Kumari Yadav, whereas the real person Rajkumari Yadav had already died on 13.11.2016. In this way, the petitioner aided in the fraud committed by the accused person with respect to Plot No.76, Block C, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Gurugram." REASONING:
6.
Duty is caste upon an identifier more than the impersonator as he is identifying a wrong person knowingly. Given the above allegations and coupled with the massive criminal history against the petitioner of similar type of cases, he is not entitled to bail. 7.
A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for anticipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not justify anticipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. 8.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 9.
Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 25.03.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:
No.
ANJU RANI 2025.03.26 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh