Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/20502/2026 of ANIL KUMAR Vs STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH on 3 September 2026
2222000022226666 ((((OOOO&&&&MMMM)))) 2222 manipulate the original order. The order was edited/manipulated and sent by Anil kumar from his WhatsApp number to Manoj Kumar Halka Girdawar, who further forwarded it on 21.11.2024 to Antriksh. It is alleged that the offence was
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
REEMA SAINI
CRM-M-20502 of 2026 (O&M)
manipulate the original order. The order was edited/manipulated and sent by Anil kumar from his WhatsApp number to Manoj Kumar Halka Girdawar, who further forwarded it on 21.11.2024 to Antriksh. It is alleged that the offence was intended to hamper the execution proceedings regarding partition of land. Upon investigation by DSP Cyber Crime Chandigarh, a complaint was filed for lodging of FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation of the case was complete. Petitioner was in custody for the last 8 months and 20 days. The act of forgery was not committed by him, though his mobile phone may have been used to transmit the forged order. As per CFSL, no activity relating to editing of the order was found on the seized laptop of Anil Kumar. Conclusion of trial was likely to take long, petitioner, therefore, deserves to be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail arguing that petitioner forged and manipulated order of this court with intent to obstruct and delay execution proceedings pertaining to agricultural land. CFSL report confirmed that the forged and fabricated order showing grant of stay was circulated through WhatsApp by petitioner, to interfere with partition proceedings, though there was no order of stay by the Court. Petitioner even attempted to erase the browsing history. Offence, being serious, petitioner was not entitled to concession of bail.
5. Petitioner is in judicial custody w.e.f. 12.12.2025. Investigation of the case is complete. Antecedents of the petitioner are clean. He is not stated to be involved in any other offence. The object of bail is not punitive but primarily to secure the attendance of accused at the trial and bail ought not to be withheld as punishment, by prejudging the guilt of the accused. REEMA SAINI
CRM-M-20502 of 2026 (O&M)
Truth of allegations against the petitioner would eventually be determined on conclusion of trial, which is likely to take long.
6. The often invoked phrase ‘Bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is not merely an empty statutory slogan flowing from the Cr.P.C. It is a constitutional principle flowing from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and the presumption of innocent which is the cornerstone of any civilised society governed by the rule of law. (Vide Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National Investigation agency 2026 SCC online SC 881).Innocent para.
7. Moreover, evidence sought to be led by prosecution is documentary and most of the witnesses are official ones. Petitioner is not in a position to influence them or tamper with evidence. Since flight risk is negligible and petitioner has roots in the society, his further incarceration is not warranted. In the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE 03.09.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI