Davinder Kumar v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-16292-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.209 CRM-M-16292-2026 Decided on : 06.05.2026 Davinder Kumar ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM :
*** Present :
Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab for the respondent(s)-State.
Mr. Gurvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.
*** , J (ORAL)
!"
# $%
#$%
#$ % $%#$% &'( )
*
+ (
, - (
.
+/
!"
*
.
/
CRM-M-16292-2026 2
+ .
*
+ ( + .
/
..
* .
+
.
It is further contended that 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.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report, which is taken on record. He, while referring to the said status report, 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 role of the petitioner has clearly emerged during the course of preliminary inquiry as well as from the material collected on record which prima facie establishes his active participation in the commission of alleged offence. He in connivance with co-accused has not only been found to be a beneficiary but also an active participant in the preparation of the alleged forged sale deed. Learned State counsel contends that the photographs of complainant were obtained under the pretext of execution of a rent agreement which were subsequently misused for fabricating the said sale deed. Further the attesting witnesses of the said sale deed have not
CRM-M-16292-2026 3 supported its execution as one of the witnesses has categorically stated that his signatures and stamp have been forged and the other witness has not affirmed his signatures on the said sale deed. 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 +
+
/
+ (
,
-
(
.
+/(
+
+
- '
.
(
- -
.
( 0
.
1
. ( .
+
. .
.
+ '
2
0
+
.
+
.
,
1
(
.
( 3 .
.
CRM-M-16292-2026 4 2
+
+
.
!
.
2 0 (
+
$%'
2
5
.
6
6
( .
0
!
(
3 .
/ 7 . 2
( 8
! "#$
%
!
%
&
'
(
'
%
'
/ 9 .2
"P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24(
.
(
CRM-M-16292-2026 5
- . '
+
3 .
8, ))*
!
! + (
, -.
%! !
! /0! #$ 12.
*
,
5
6 )$.
! "#$ . ,
, 7
5
8
5
* %9 -
:::::::::
$#;
!
%
;
<
5
8
CRM-M-16292-2026 6
4 : ;
2 .
. -
&+
+
( +. ( '
+ . . !
.
+ .
-
.
<
..
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No =
8><