Petitioner sought anticipatory bail for charges of forgery and cheating in multiple Gurugram FIRs. The Court held that the State's reply demonstrated the need for custodial interrogation to clarify transactions involving forged documents, thereby finding grounds to deny bail.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; no bail granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
CRM No. M-23132 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-23132 of 2020 Date of decision 03.09.2020
Pankaj Rohilla
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Balram Prashar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Sheenu Sura, D.A.G. Haryana
Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.12 dated 23.01.2020, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sushant Lok, Gurugram.
On notice of the petition, a reply has been filed by way of affidavit dated 25.08.2020 taking a stand that the specific role of the present petition has comeforth that he along with his co-accused Rajender @ Raju and Suresh used to take the photocopy of the documents from the office of of Ansap Properties and hand over the same to co-accused Lucky Uppal. The petitioner received amount of Rs.12 lacs from co-accused Vibha. Further the petitioner has been found to be involved in two F.I.R's i.e F.I.R No. 13 dated 23.01.2020 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC at P.S. Sushant Lok Gurugram and F.I.RNo. 310 dated 18.08.2020 GAURAV ARORA 2020.09.04 14:17 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B/511 IPC at P.S. Sushant Lok I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
CRM No. M-23132 of 2020
Gurugram. The petitioner is yet to be arrested in both the cases.
After going through the reply, it is very clear that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to enquire about other transactions made by him through forged documents.
In view of the reply filed by the State, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) 03.09.2020 JUDGE G Arora
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
GAURAV ARORA 2020.09.04 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether grounds are made out for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in cases involving cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
Whether custodial interrogation is required given the allegations of forgery and involvement in multiple FIRs.
Whether the petitioner has established that no ground for anticipatory bail exists in light of the State's reply.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pankaj Rohilla
State of Haryana
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
