Abhishek v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.221 Date of Decision: 15.05.2026 ABHISHEK

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This is first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 35 dated 11.02.2026, registered under Sections 61(2), 216, 318(4), 336(3), 337, 340(2), 339 BNS and Sections 120-B, 181, 420, 468, 466, 471 and 474 IPC at Police Station Sadar, District Hoshiarpur, during the pendency of trial.

2.

Briefly stated, the allegations in the FIR are with regard to preparation and production of forged surety and bail documents before the Court in judicial proceedings. The petitioner was arrested in the present case and is stated to be in judicial custody since 11 .02.2026. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and had no role in preparation of any forged documents. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner had been granted bail and the sureties were arranged by relatives from Khanna.

Since no attesting witness was available at the relevant time, the petitioner merely acted as a witness while furnishing the bail bonds and had no knowledge that the documents produced were forged. It is further contended that there was no conspiracy or meeting of minds between the petitioner and the co-accused persons and that the petitioner never visited Khanna. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2026, challan has not yet been presented, the petitioner is not a proclaimed offender and he is not likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence if released on bail. 4.

Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate along with the status report of the petitioner before the Court today and, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner pertaining to the preparation and production of forged surety bonds and revenue documents before the Court with the intent to secure the release of an accused. It is contended that during verification, the signatures of the concerned Tehsildar and Halqa Patwari were found to be forged. It is further submitted that the petitioner actively participated in the process by identifying the surety and appending his signatures in support of the surety bonds and, therefore, no ground for grant of bail is made out. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner is in custody for the last about three months. Investigation stands completed and challan has already been presented before the learned trial Court. No prosecution witness has been examined so far and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. A perusal of the allegations would show that the primary accusation regarding

preparation of forged documents and fake revenue record is against the persons who furnished the surety and allegedly produced the documents before the Court. The role attributed to the present petitioner is primarily that he identified the surety and attested the surety bonds. There is nothing on record at this stage to show that the persons identified by the petitioner were fictitious persons or that the petitioner himself prepared the forged documents. Whether the petitioner had prior knowledge regarding the alleged forged nature of the documents is a matter to be examined during trial. Continued incarceration of the petitioner would, therefore, serve no useful purpose, particularly when investigation is complete and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

6.

Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7.

However, it is made clear that nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 8.

All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU) 15.05.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No