Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/32730/2026 of MANGAL SAIN Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 July 2026
-2- Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Sr. Advocate submits that the FIR was registered in the year 2015. The police found no truth in the allegations and presented cancellation report in September 2019. Since complainant did not agree with the cancellation report, learned
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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
Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Sr. Advocate submits that the FIR was registered in the year 2015. The police found no truth in the allegations and presented cancellation report in September 2019. Since complainant did not agree with the cancellation report, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class ordered further investigation into the matter. Petitioner was nominated as an accused vide GD No. 41 dated 04.01.2017, 02 years after registration of the FIR. On the same allegations, a civil suit was filed by the complainant in the Civil Court, wherein application for temporary injunction was declined on 10.02.2019. Meanwhile, second cancellation report was presented. When complainant was not agreeable, further investigation was ordered on 14.12.2021. On 14.01.2022, Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, recommended third cancellation report. CRM-M-5743-2022 was filed by the complainant seeking quashing of order of formation of SIT for re- investigation and CRM-M-19906-2022 was filed by the co-accused Vineet Garg against order of further investigation. Both the matters were disposed of giving direction to Director, Bureau of Investigation to re-constitute SIT, headed by an IPS officer, preferably out of Bathinda and Faridkot Range. Co-accused Satpal Garg challenged the order dated 29.07.2024 through SLP(Crl.) 62599/2025, wherein both the parties agreed for mediation. Learned counsel further refers to Annexure P-8, order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) 62566-2025 filed by Satpal Garg, wherein no coercive steps were ordered to be taken against Satpal Garg till completion of mediation proceedings. He further submits that vide Annexure P-9, anticipatory bail of co-accused Satish Kumar Garg brother-in-law of the complainant, though rejected by the High Court, vide order Annexure P-10 dated 27.05.2026, interim anticipatory bail was granted to Satish Kumar Garg by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He prays that in the light of the fact that on three occasions, cancellation report was submitted by the police and co-accused were granted interim protection by the Apex Court, petitioner, who was not even a beneficiary, be allowed anticipatory bail. REEMA SAINI
Notice of motion. Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Mr. Dhariya Garg, Advocate, Mr. Avikaran Bansal, Advocate have on their own put in appearance on behalf of complainant. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that petitioner had a major role in the commission of offence being the person who purchased the stamp paper and used it for preparing the forged documents i.e. retirement deed. His case was not on a lesser footing. Rather, he was attributed main role being the attesting witness of retirement deed. Status report in the matter be filed on 27.07.2026. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.’
3. Learned State counsel on instructions submits that petitioner joined investigation, whereafter investigation was completed and challan had been presented in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant prays for an adjournment on the ground that talks of settlement are in progress between the parties and grant of anticipatory bail would adversely effect efforts for compromise.
5. Since, petitioner has joined investigation pursuant to order of this Court dated 03.06.2026 and final report has been presented in the Court, there is no reason to adjourn the case further. In the circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, the petition is allowed and order dated dated 03.06.2026, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, REEMA SAINI
is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE 27.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI