Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Forgery and Cheating Case, Notes Delay and Property Dispute Motivations Behind FIR
Case Name: Lakhwinder Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: October 22, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-59759-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in an FIR alleging cheating and forgery, holding that the case appeared to be motivated by a property dispute and delayed retaliation rather than genuine criminal intent. Justice Sandeep Moudgil ruled that the nearly one-and-a-half-year delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the complainant’s failure to explain the delay, created serious doubts regarding bona fides. The Court further observed that the investigation pertained only to documentary evidence already in possession of the investigating officer, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The petitioners’ willingness to join the investigation and cooperate with authorities weighed in favour of granting pre-arrest protection.
Summary: The petitioners had sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with FIR No. 129 dated August 30, 2025, registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla. The FIR alleged that they forged a power of attorney and other property-related documents, defrauding the complainant. The defence argued that the FIR was filed belatedly and was a counterblast to ongoing property disputes, triggered by the recent rise in market value. They contended that no specific role had been attributed to the petitioners, and all documentary evidence was already with the investigating agency. The petitioners undertook to cooperate and join the investigation.
Opposing bail, the State and the complainant argued that one of the co-accused’s sons was an attesting witness to the alleged forged documents, necessitating custodial interrogation. The Court, however, found that the investigation revolved around records available with public authorities such as the Tehsildar and Deputy Collector and that recovery of documents, if needed, could be achieved without custody. Justice Moudgil agreed with the defence contention that the delayed FIR, coupled with the timing coinciding with a property value surge, cast doubt on the complainant’s bona fides.
Decision: Allowing the petition, the High Court directed that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the investigating or arresting officer. The petitioners were required to join the investigation within one week and comply with conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, including cooperation, non-tampering with evidence, and refraining from leaving India without permission. The Court clarified that non-compliance would automatically cancel the bail order.