Impersonation in Property Transfer a Serious Fraud: Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail to Beneficiary of Forged Deed
Case Name: Anwarpreet Kaur v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 25.03.2026
Citation: CRM-M-16602-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh
Held: The High Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases involving serious allegations of fraud and forgery, particularly where the accused is a beneficiary of the alleged crime and custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the conspiracy.
Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC relating to alleged fraudulent transfer of property.
The complainant alleged that while he was residing abroad, the petitioner, his wife, got the property transferred in her name by introducing an impersonator as the owner and executing a forged transfer deed .
The petitioner argued that the transfer was consensual and executed with the knowledge of the complainant, and that the FIR was a counterblast to matrimonial disputes. It was further contended that she had been taking care of the property and family in the complainant’s absence.
The State and complainant opposed the plea, asserting that the transfer deed was executed through impersonation and fraud. It was highlighted that the complainant was not even in India at the time of execution of the deed, thereby strengthening the allegation of forgery.
The Court observed that the property originally belonged to the complainant and that the transfer deed in favour of the petitioner was prima facie executed by an impersonator. It further noted that the petitioner, being the beneficiary of the fraudulent transaction, could not claim ignorance of the identity of the transferor.
The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and must be granted only in exceptional circumstances. It held that in cases involving serious economic offences and fraud, custodial interrogation is often necessary to trace the conspiracy and identify other involved persons.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and denied anticipatory bail. It held that no exceptional circumstances were made out for grant of such relief and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the identity of the impersonator and the full extent of the fraudulent transaction.