Deepak Dhunna v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-22946-2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22946-2026 Date of decision: 27th May, 2026 Deepak Dhunna

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:

Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 98 dated 10.04.2025 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. 2.

Vide order dated 24.04.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner was released on interim bail and was directed to join investigation. 3.

The petitioner had joined the investigation on 30.04.2026 as informed by learned State counsel on the last date of hearing. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Learned counsel for the complainant, has, however, strenuously argued that the allegations against the

CRM-M-22946-2026 -2petitioner are quite serious in nature, since it was he, who is the main beneficiary of the transaction and was an active participant in the conspiracy hatched with the co-accused on the basis of false and fabricated entries in the revenue records. It is submitted by him that for the purpose of conducting proper and thorough investigation in the matter and taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, which include commission of offence of forgery and use of false documents, and further that in view of the disclosure statement of co-accused Hardeep Singh, Patwari, to the effect that it was the present petitioner, who had been pursuing the incorporation of false entries by way of forgery in the revenue record, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail, which is an extraordinary power to be exercised by the Court in exceptional circumstances. It is, therefore, argued by him that the petition does not deserve to be entertained.

4.

While controverting the pleas as taken by learned counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the case is based upon documentary evidence. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for due consideration. No criminal intent can be attributed to him. He has already joined the investigation. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

CRM-M-22946-2026 -36. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused, is alleged to have purchased the property owned by the complainant on the basis of change in the revenue record and by getting incorporated some false entries in the revenue record by fabrication. Though the allegations prima facie point out his complicity in the crime, however, the case rests upon documentary evidence. As discussed above, the petitioner has already joined the investigation. In the given circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order 24.04.2026 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of BNSS.

7.

It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8.

Since the main petition has been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

[MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 27th May, 2026 Parveen Sharma

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes / No

2. Whether reportable :

Yes / No