Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail in NCC Certificate Forgery Case; Holds Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Corruption and Forgery Offences

Case Name: Dheeraj v. State of Haryana and Another

Date of Judgment: 13 January 2026

Citation: CRM-M-1065-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that anticipatory bail in cases involving serious allegations of corruption, forgery and abuse of official position is an extraordinary relief to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Court held that where the allegations are supported by a vigilance enquiry and custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the conspiracy, trace forged records and identify beneficiaries, pre-arrest bail ought to be declined.

Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No.34 registered at Police Station ACB, Gurugram, for offences under Sections 420, 120-B, 467 and 468 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) and 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was registered pursuant to a vigilance enquiry conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Haryana, which revealed large-scale irregularities in issuance of NCC “B” certificates to ineligible candidates at Ahir College, Rewari.

As per the enquiry, several cadets were falsely shown as students of Ahir College and were granted NCC certificates on the basis of forged and fabricated enrollment documents. The petitioner, who was posted as Associate NCC Officer, was alleged to have misused his official position in collusion with the then Principal by preparing and verifying false enrollment records for relatives and other ineligible candidates, some of whom were over-aged or not students of the institution. The record relating to one cadet was also found missing.

The petitioner contended that he had no statutory role in enrolment or issuance of NCC certificates, that he merely performed administrative coordination, that the FIR was a counter-blast to earlier proceedings, that no pecuniary benefit was attributed to him, and that the mandatory sanction under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not obtained. He also relied on the documentary nature of the case to argue that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the allegations were grave, supported by documentary material, and that custodial interrogation was required to trace the chain of events, identify other beneficiaries, and uncover the modus operandi. It was also pointed out that the petitioner’s earlier anticipatory bail application had already been dismissed and no substantial change in circumstances was shown.

The High Court held that the petitioner’s lack of statutory authority could not be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of anticipatory bail and that active facilitation or coordination with knowledge of illegality could attract criminal liability. The Court further held that offences of forgery and conspiracy are complete upon preparation or verification of forged documents and actual use of such documents is not a sine qua non. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab and State v. Anil Sharma, the Court emphasised that custodial interrogation in corruption cases is often essential and anticipatory bail should not be granted where it may impede a fair and effective investigation.

Decision: The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in view of the seriousness of allegations, the stage of investigation, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.