CRM-M/30292/2026 of DIVYANSH RAI Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 28 July 2026

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.66 dated 29.07.2024, under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sector-7, Panchkula, District Panchkula, Haryana. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

2. On 25.05.2026, following order was passed: “1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of pre- arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.66 dated 29.07.2024 registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 IPC [corresponding Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 337, 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023] at Police Station Sector-7, Panchkula, District Panchkula, Haryana, along with a prayer for grant of interim protection during the pendency of the present petition.

2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint moved by Pankaj Sharma, Reader posted in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, alleging that the petitioner had obtained bail in an earlier case arising out of FIR No.239 dated 07.08.2023 under Sections 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Sections 120-B, 328, 384, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula, by furnishing a fake surety. It was alleged that one Randhir Singh, in whose name the surety documents were submitted before the Court, later stated that he had never stood surety for the petitioner and that his Aadhaar Card had beenforged and misused. During investigation, it surfaced that the alleged forged Aadhaar Card of Randhir Singh was prepared and an impersonator was produced before the Court in place of the real Randhir Singh for securing bail of the petitioner. It is further the case of the prosecution that the impersonator was identified by the father of the petitioner namely Rajeev Rai and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required to ascertain the involvement of other persons and recovery of forged documents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and had no role in furnishing the alleged fake surety documents. It is argued that at the time when the bail bond and surety bond were furnished before the Court on 19.01.2024, the petitioner was already lodged in Central

Jail, Ambala in connection with another FIR and, therefore, he was not aware of the alleged forged surety documents. It is further contended that there are no signatures of the petitioner on the bail bond or surety bond in question and no offence is made out against him from a bare perusal of the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the given address, is ready to join investigation, shall abide by all the conditions imposed by the Court and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses. Hence, prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the present bail application. Learned State counsel submits that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner regarding furnishing of a fake surety and use of forged documents for securing bail in an earlier criminal case. It is contended that the forged Aadhaar Card of Randhir Singh was prepared and an impersonator was produced before the Court in place of the actual surety for obtaining release of the petitioner from custody. Learned State counsel further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the complete conspiracy, ascertain the involvement of other accused persons and effect recovery of the forged documents as well as to identify the impersonator involved in the occurrence.

6. Heard.

7. At this stage, without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice either side during the course of investigation/trial, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations against the petitioner are primarily based upon documentary evidence, which is already in possession of the investigating agency and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary at this stage, particularly when the petitioner has expressed his willingness to join and cooperate in the investigation.

8. Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vishal Kumar @ Raboo versus State of Haryana, 2025 NCPHHC 24361, while dealing with a case involving allegations of furnishing fake surety and obtaining bail through forged documents, held that custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration is not justified where the allegations are founded on documentary evidence and no recovery is to be effected from the accused, and that such an accused can be granted the concession of anticipatory bail subject to conditions ensuring cooperation in investigation and preventing misuse of liberty.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as also the law laid down in the judgment referred to hereinabove, the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer and to cooperate with the investigation in all respects.

10. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner fails to join investigation or does not cooperate with the Investigating Agency, the State shall be at liberty to seek appropriate orders from this Court.

11. List on 28.07.2026.”

3. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Nirmal Singh submits that petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

4. Petitioner has joined investigation pursuant to order of this Court dated 25.05.2026 and his further custodial interrogation is not required. In the circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, the petition is allowed and order dated dated 25.05.2026, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

5. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 28.07.2026

JUDGE

Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No