Jagjit Rai Prabhakar v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-50479-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-50479-2025 Date of Decision : 09.09.2025 JAGJIT RAI PRABHAKAR .... PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present :

Mr.Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing in FIR No. 0122 dated 15.08.2025, registered under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Haibowal, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he along with co-accused availed a loan of Rs.75 lakhs over the property of complainant by illegally mortgaging the same on the basis of forged documents alleged to be sale deed executed by the petitioner through Sonu Kumar. It is contended that the entire case rests upon documentary evidence, no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, and custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner, being a 71 years old senior citizen suffering from heart disease and other age-related ailments, undertakes to cooperate with the investigation, not to tamper with evidence, Anju Goel 2025.09.16 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-50479-2025 -2and to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court. Accordingly, prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab, accepted notice on behalf of respondent-State and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific in nature. The petitioner had already sold his property in favour of complainant Jagtar Singh vide sale deed dated 05.04.2018 and thereafter with dishonest intention, executed a power of attorney dated 07.07.2021 in favour of co-accused Sonu Kumar in respect of the very same property and had fraudulently got executed sale deed dated 07.07.2021 in favour of Saurabh Mahajan with dishonest intention of causing wrongful gain to himself to the extent of 50% of the sale consideration. Thus, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for a fair and proper investigation. Therefore, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petition.

5.

Heard.

6.

In view of the nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain his role in the conspiracy, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail.

7.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 09.09. 2025 anju Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Anju Goel 2025.09.16 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh