Allowed¶27

Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2025CRM-M/17967/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-17967-2025(O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, N.S. Shekhawat J., decided 07.07.2025 — anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS allowed to a Deed Writer in FIR No.200 dated 03.05.2024 under Sections 419, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC (sale-deed cheating/forgery case, PS Punjab State Zirakpur, SAS Nagar); custodial interrogation held unnecessary; bail subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions; Investigating Officer may call petitioner by written notice; co-accused Ashok Kumar earlier granted similar concession (Annexure P-2).

What did the court decide?

Concession of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS; the Investigating Officer may call the petitioner to join investigation, if required, by written notice. ¶27

Lakshay Jain Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner (Lakshay Jain) in case FIR No.200 dated 03.05.2024 registered under Sections 419, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The present petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

In the considered opinion of the Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required.

¶23

Key takeaways

It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice, and the petitioner shall abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS.ratio¶27
Pending application, if any, stands also disposed of.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted — Lakshay Jain, a Deed Writer, filed a petition under Section 482 BNSS in FIR No.200 dated 03.05.2024 (Sections 419, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Punjab State Zirakpur, SAS Nagar) concerning a sale deed executed in favour of the complainant after the death of vendor Gurdev Singh. Counsel contended the petitioner was not named initially, had drafted the sale deed on the complainant's instructions from Aadhar Cards received from the parties, was unknown to them personally, had no collusion with co-accused Amardeep Singh, Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar, and that a documentary-evidence case required no custody; the State opposed, alleging he actively participated and identified persons through their Aadhar Cards, common intention being a matter for trial. Holding custodial interrogation unnecessary, the Court allowed the petition, granted anticipatory bail subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions, left the Investigating Officer free to summon the petitioner by written notice to join investigation, and disposed of pending applications.

¶1

CRM-M-17967-2025

¶2

-1-

¶3

207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-17967-2025(O&M) Date of Decision:07.07.2025

Lakshay Jain

…Petitioner

vs.

State of Punjab

…Respondent

Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat

¶11

Present : Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.200 dated 03.05.2024, registered under Sections 419, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Punjab State Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named initially in the FIR and had no concern with either the exchange of money between the parties or execution of sale deed between the parties. Learned counsel further contends that even from the admitted allegations levelled in the FIR, it is apparent that the complainant had no grouse against the present petitioner and he had levelled allegations primarily against Amardeep Singh, Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar. In fact, the petitioner was working as a Deed Writter and after receipt of various Aadhar Cards, he had drafted the sale

¶17

HEMLATA 2025.07.07 23:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-17967-2025

¶19

-2-

¶20

deed, which is subject matter of the present FIR. He further contends that he had drafted the sale deed on instructions of the complainant and had no concern with the transfer of the property in any manner. He further contends that the petitioner was not personally known to any of the parties and there was no question of any collusion with the co-accused. Even otherwise, the case is based on documentary evidence and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required. Learned counsel has further referred to the order (Annexure P- 2) passed by this Court, whereby the concession of anticipatory bail has been allowed to Ashok Kumar, co-accused and the case of the petitioner is on better footing.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had actively participated in the commission of crime and had identified certain persons, on the basis of their Aadhar Cards. He further submits that Gurdev Singh, Vendor had already died and the sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant, just to cheat him. In the present case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was a Deed Writter and had drafted the sale deed on the asking of the parties. Further, he had received the photocopies of Aadhar Cards from the parties and had accordingly drafted the sale deed. Thus, whether the petitioner shared the common intention with his co-accused or not, is a subject matter of trial and the prosecution is yet to lead evidence with regard to his involvement before the trial Court.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶23

At this stage, in the considered opinion of the Court, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required and the present petition is

¶24

HEMLATA 2025.07.07 23:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-17967-2025

¶26

-3-

¶27

allowed. The petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard and he shall abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶28

Pending application, if any, stands also disposed of.

¶29

(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 07.07.2025 JUDGE

¶30

hemlata

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶32

HEMLATA 2025.07.07 23:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veronika @ Divyanshi Kanwar Vs State of Punjab

Mubarik Husen Alias Mubarik Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Shokeen Vs State of Haryana

Gagandeep Vs State of Haryana and Another

Surinder Kaur Alias Anjali Vs State of Punjab