Inderpreet Singh Alias Romi Vs State of Punjab

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of t h e Bharatiya N a garik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s e eking concession of anticipato r y bail in FIR No. 0080 dated 14.04.2026 r e gistered under Sections 318(4), 308(4), 338, 336(3), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 ( corresponding Section 420, 38 7 , 467, 468, 5 0 6 IPC), Police Station Doraha, Police District Khanna, Distri c t Ludhiana. 2. Learned counsel for the petitio n er submits that the petitioner h a s been falsely implicated in the present cas e . It is argued that the power o f attorney in q uestion was voluntarily execut e d by the complainant herself a n d that the peti t ioner has not derived any bene f it from the said transaction. It i s further cont e nded that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner a n d that he is wi l ling to join and cooperate with t h e investigation.

¶15

On the other hand, learned Stat e counsel opposes the petition a n d submits that the petitioner actively partici p ated in the commission of t h e alleged offe n ces. It is argued that he acted i n connivance with the co-accus e d ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.06.09 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-28159-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶17

in procuring forged signatures of the complainant on documents presented before the Court and that his custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair and effective investigation.

¶18

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

¶19

The allegations against the petitioner are not confined to a peripheral roles but attribute to him active participation in the alleged acts of forgery, cheating and misuse of judicial process. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates his association with the co-accused in the events leading to the filing of the impugned documents before the Court. The nature of the accusations and the attendant circumstances require a thorough investigation to ascertain the extent of his involvement and the larger conspiracy, if any.

¶20

At this stage, the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner pertain to disputed questions of fact which cannot be conclusively examined while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail. The investigation is still in progress and the requirement of custodial interrogation cannot be ruled out.

¶21

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the

¶22

stage of investigation, this Court does not find any ground warranting the exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

¶23