Mohan Lal Vs State of Haryana

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.843 dated 26.12.2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 61(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 238(C) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) at Police Station Camp Palwal, District Palwal.

¶15

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Madhu Kansal alleging therein that she was absolute owner in possession of agricultural land

¶16

MANJU 2026.07.07 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶17

-2-

¶18

CRM-M No.32418 of 2026

¶19

measuring 26 kanals situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Dhatir, Tehsil and Distrit Palwal. She has purchased this land vide 02 separate registered sale deeds from the previous owners. Mutation qua these properties had also been sanctioned in her favour. She had informed that she never resided at GTB Nagar, West Delhi. She never intended to sell the land. However, she came to know that by forging her aadhar card and by impersonating her, one relinquishment deed qua the above-mentioned property had been executed in favour of one Mahipal Singh son of Bhagwan Singh on 16.10.2025. Though she never executed any such relinquishment deed which had also been got registered in connivance with the officials of Sub-Registrar office. By alleging that the documents were fabricated and the aforementioned relinquishment deed had been executed by someone to cheat and defraud her, she prayed for taking action in the matter.

¶20

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The record of the disputed land was obtained from the concerned departments. The presence of the petitioner Mohan Lal a Numberdar by profession who was identifier of the attesting witnesses was secured by issuance of production warrants as he was in some other case. He was arrested on 07.02.2026. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. On the basis

¶21

of his disclosure statement, Sanjay Singh was nominated as co-accused

¶22

MANJU 2026.07.07 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶23

-3-

¶24

CRM-M No.32418 of 2026

¶25

who too was arrested and suffered disclosure statement admitting that he along with other accused had forged Aadhar Card in the name of Mohit and by impersonated himself as such, had identified Mahipal Singh accused as grandson of the complainant. The complainant was also impersonated by some female unknown to him. Investigation now stands concluded.

¶26

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was neither aware about the alleged impersonation nor he is beneficiary of the transaction. The coaccused Sanjay Singh while projecting himself as Mohit and Mahipal Singh had signed on the relinquishment deed. He was only a marginal identifier. The case is based on documentary evidence which is already in possession of the investigating agency. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody any more. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail.

¶27

Per contra, learned State counsel while placing on record status report and custody certificate has vehemently argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail and the petition does not deserves to be allowed.

¶28

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned

¶29

MANJU 2026.07.07 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶30

-4-

¶31

CRM-M No.32418 of 2026

¶32

counsel for the parties at considerable length.

¶33

The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents which were prepared qua the identity of the complainant as well as of accused Sanjay Singh and relinquishment deed qua the property owned by the complainant has been executed. The allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. The impersonator of the complainant has not been traced as yet. The case is at its nascent stage. The offence punishable under Section 338 of BNS entails punishment with imprisonment for life. Taking into consideration the nature of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶34

It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶35

(MANISHA BATRA) 06.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶36

MANJU 2026.07.07 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmeet Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab

Gurmeet Kaur & Others Vs State of Punjab & Another

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bobby Bhatia Vs Munish Kumar Gupta

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Nakul Vs State of Haryana