Dharambir Grover v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.08.2025 Dharambir Grover
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amrik Narwal, D.A.G., Haryana.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 03.04.2025 ACB Hisar, District 420, 468, 471, 511 IPC and Hisar 66C of IT (Amendment) Act 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.
Per paragraph 23 of the bail petition, petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 3.
The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by State counsel, which reads as follows:
"3. That the brief facts of the case are that accused/petitioner Dharambir Grover Contractor, in connivance with the officers/employees in the office of Executive Engineer, Water Services Division, Bhiwani, had contacted Shri Varun Chugh, CA, to get himself registered as a Class-3 contractor. The firm VKMC & Associates presented fake turnover certificate for the year 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 which is false and forged and both the words Membership Number & UDIN' written in this certificate are wrong. Shri Jitendra Mann, Executive Engineer, Bhiwani Water Services Division, Bhiwani and some officers/employees of that division, in collusion with each other, certified the documents related to this case on 20.06.2024 and 02.07.2024 and said that "All documents checked and as per order. All documents checked found as per registration rule and sent this case to the Divisional Office for registration, on which the committee of the Divisional Office sent it back on 16.07.2024 raising various objections. In this way. Shri Jitendra Mann, Executive Engineer,
Bhiwani Water Services Division and other officers/employees, in collusion with accused/petitioner Dharamveer Grover contractor, misused their position and cheated him by declaring his fake turnover certificate as correct. Tehrir was sent to the Suprintendent of Police, Anti-Curruption Bureau, Hisar and ADGP, AntiCurruption Bureau Haryana, Panchkula. As per directions of ADGP, Anti-Curruption Bureau Haryana, Panchkula, a case FIR No. 13 dated 03.04.2025 u/s 420, 468, 471 and 511 of IPC and 66C of IT Act was registered."
4.
The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
5.
The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 6.
It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:
"4. That during the verification of the allegations made in the above complaint, it was found that the accused/petitioner Dharambir Grover tractor had sent his online application through Haryana Engineering 2000 Marks Portal' to the office of Executive Engineer. Bhiwani Water Services Division, Bhiwani to get himself registered as a Class-3 contractor and along with it, Shri Varun Group, CA. The firm VKMC & Associates had also uploaded fake turnover certificates for the year 2018-19 (Rs. 5,69,20,010), 2019-20 (Rs.4,12,20,021), 2020-21 (Rs.8,61,23,340), 2021-22 (Rs. 8,68,57,452) and 2022-23 (Rs. 12,58,741) on the portal, which showed its turnover of crores of rupees every year. Its authenticity is not known, and the digital signature of Shri Varun Group CA has been copied from some other document issued by it and pasted on it.
This has been confirmed by Sh. Varun Chugh CA in his statement, and he has also demanded legal action against accused/petitioner Dharambir Grover contractor. During the verification, prima facie, this case was found to be related to fraud and forgery by preparing forged documents from the computer."
7.
Allegations against the petitioner are qua uploading of forged documents on the portal of government, however no benefit has been drawn by the petitioner and evidence is documentary in nature, as such, no ground is made out for custodial interrogation. 8.
Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pretrial incarceration. 9.
Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there
would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. 10.
Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 11.
While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:
1.
AADHAR number 2.
Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3.
Mobile number (If available) 4.
E-Mail id (If available) 12.
This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 13.
The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.
14.
In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
15.
This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 16.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 17.
A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 18.
Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 11.08.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:
No.