Allowed¶46

Banwari Lal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2026CRM-M/4629/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail - S.482 BNSS 2023 - FIR No. 06 dated 11.01.2026, P.S. Dharuhera, Distt. Rewari, Haryana - cheating S.420 and forgery SS.467/468/471 with criminal conspiracy S.120B IPC - alleged usurpation of public money through fraudulent transactions concerning agricultural land mortgaged to complainant-Bank - interim bail dated 30.04.2026 made absolute - petitioner aged 72 joined investigation, custodial interrogation not required - offence triable by Judicial Magistrate - documentary evidence - no loss to complainant-Bank, mortgagee rights intact - Banwari Lal v. State of Haryana, Criminal Misc. No. M-4629 of 2026, decided 20.05.2026 by Surya Partap Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim anticipatory bail order dated 30.04.2026 made absolute. ¶46

Banwari Lal Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted; interim anticipatory bail order dated 30.04.2026 made absolute.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, already on interim anticipatory bail since 30.04.2026 and having joined the investigation, is entitled to anticipatory bail so that the interim order dated 30.04.2026 is made absolute.

¶23

Court's answer

The petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail; the petition is allowed and the interim anticipatory bail order dated 30.04.2026 is made absolute.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

A decisive consideration was that the petitioner had already joined the investigation and, as per the Investigating Officer, his custodial interrogation was not required.

¶28

Key takeaways

Any observation recorded in the order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.obiter¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Surya Partap Singh, J.) allowed a first petition for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising from FIR No. 06 dated 11.01.2026, P.S. Dharuhera, District Rewari (Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC). The interim anticipatory bail granted on 30.04.2026 was made absolute. Key considerations: the petitioner (aged 72) had already joined the investigation and the Investigating Officer stated custodial interrogation was not required; the offence is triable by the Judicial Magistrate; no privity of contract between petitioner and complainant-Bank; the mortgagee-complainant's first charge over the mortgaged agricultural land remained intact so apparently no loss was caused and its right of recovery was intact; the evidence to be collected is documentary; trial unlikely to conclude soon; nothing left to recover from the petitioner; detention in judicial lock-up unlikely to serve any purpose; and no material showing likelihood of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or non-cooperation. The Court clarified that observations in the order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶1

104

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶3

Criminal Misc. No. M-4629 of 2026

¶4

Date of Decision: 20.05.2026

Banwari Lal

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and Another

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

¶11

Present: Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶12

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. Anurag Jain, Mr. Anmol Singh and Ms. Ashika Kalra, Advocate, for the respondent No.2.

¶14

Surya Partap Singh, J.

¶15

This petition for anticipatory bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 06 dated 11.01.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’, Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari, Haryana.

¶16

Vide order dated 30.04.2026, the petitioner was admitted to interim anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. It was also directed that the petitioner shall join the investigation.

¶17

The learned State Counsel has filed status report. The same be

¶18

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.05.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

Criminal Misc. No. M-4629 of 2026

¶20

¶21

taken on record.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with order dated 30.04.2026, the petitioner has already joined the investigation, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that the order dated 30.04.2026 be made absolute.

¶24

The learned State counsel, on the instructions of ‘SI Suresh Kumar’, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation, and that for further investigation of this case his custodial interrogation is not required.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed the above-mentioned arguments on the ground that a large quantity of public money has been usurped in the present case by resorting to fraudulent transactions. As per learned counsel for the complainant, in view of gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶26

The record has been perused carefully.

¶27

With regard to fact-situation of this case and the above mentioned arguments, following are the relevant factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration:-

¶28

i) that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and as per Investigating Officer, his custodial interrogation is not required;

¶29

ii) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

¶30

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.05.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

Criminal Misc. No. M-4629 of 2026

¶32

¶33

iii) that being 72-year-old person, the petitioner deserves a considerate view;

¶34

iv) that there is no allegation that there was privity of contract between the petitioner and the complainantBank;

¶35

v) that prima facie there was no bar for transfer of agricultural land, which was subject matter of mortgage in favour of complainant, as the rights of the complainant, as a mortgagee of the above-mentioned land, creates first charge on the agricultural land and therefore, the same are secured;

¶36

vi) that apparently no loss, whatsoever, has been caused to the complainant-Bank, as the right of recovery of complainant Bank from the above-mentioned land is intact;

¶37

vi) that the entire evidence to be collected by the Investigating Agency in the present case is documentary in nature and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result;

¶38

viii) that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future;

¶39

ix) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

¶40

x) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

¶41

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.05.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

Criminal Misc. No. M-4629 of 2026

¶43

¶44

xi) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

¶45

xii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.

¶46

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 30.04.2026, whereby the petitioner was accorded the benefit of interim anticipatory bail, is hereby made absolute.

¶47

However, it is clarified that any observation recorded in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶48

(Surya Partap Singh) Judge

¶49

May 20, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶50

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.05.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Banwari Lal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banwari Lal v. State of Haryana

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

Ankit Surendra Jha Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Neeraj Pal Vs State of Haryana

Pari @ Lalita Vs State of Haryana

Akashdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Malkeet Kaur Kang Vs State of Haryana

Jagdish Hooda Vs State of Haryana