Brij Kishore @ Brij Kishor v. State of Haryana

IN 106 (2 cas

¶1CR Brij Kisho

State of H

2. CR

Jitender Y

State of H

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1disposed o

2026 title

¶2Bharatiya Cr.P.C.) s

24.03.202 THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG ses)

RM-M-29877-2026 ore @ Brij Kishor

V/s Haryana

RM-M-31384-2026 Yadav

V/s Haryana

decision: 06.07.2026 Uploading : 08.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advoca (in CRM-29877-2026) Mr. Kartik, Advocate for the (in CRM-M-31384-2026) thr Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Senior A Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate f ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) By this common order, the of together, as they emanate from For brevity, the facts are b d as Brij Kishore @ Brij Kishor The present petitions have b a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20 seeking the concession of anti 26 under Sections 61(2), 318(4

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

....Petitioner

....Respondent

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL ate for the petitioner rough V.C. , Senior DAG Haryana. Advocate with for the complainant. aforesaid two petitions are bei m a common FIR. being taken from CRM-M-2987 r vs. State of Haryana. been filed under Section 482 of 023 (corresponding to Section 4 cipatory bail in FIR No.77 da 4), 329(4), 336(3), 338, 340 a

77-

351(2) re registered

¶3Singh alle

20.03.201 square ya the entire prevailing been furt constructi was subse the comp namely Ji Brij Kish another A CRM-M-2 property. complaina was also d FIR in qu

(daughter having ex thereto, o added. Th was transf ead with Section 3(5) of the d at Police Station Sadar Ballabg As per the prosecution case eged that his father had entered 15 with Bhagwati Devi in respe ards situated in village Mauza S e sale consideration had been p g at the relevant time, the sale d ther alleged that the possessio ion comprising rooms, boundar equently raised and installed ov lainant is that after the death o itender, Santosh Rani and Mithi hore (in CRM-M-29877-2026) Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2 29877-2026) and thereafter It has been further alleged th ant and the electricity connectio disconnected by misrepresentati estion came to be registered and During the course of inve r of Bhagwati Devi) was record xecuted the Agreement to Se offences relating to forgery an he investigation has further reve ferred by petitioner Brij Kishore

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20 arh, District Faridabad. e, the complainant namely Dine d into an Agreement to Sell da ect of Plot No.184 measuring 2 Sahupura. As per the complaina aid and on account of restrictio deed could not be executed. It h n of the plot was delivered a ry wall and electricity connecti ver the property. The grievance of Bhagwati Devi, her legal he lesh, in connivance with petition and others, dishonestly crea 2026 in favour of Brij Kishore forcibly occupied the dispu hat threats were extended to on in the name of the complain ion. On these set of allegations, d investigation ensued. estigation, statement of Mithile ded wherein she allegedly den ell dated 05.01.2026. Consequ nd fabrication of documents w aled that an amount of ₹5,00,00 e (in CRM-M-29877-2026) into

esh ted ant, ons has of irs, ner ted (in ted ant esh ied ent ere 00/-

account ₹2,00,000

¶4the petitio counsel h possession parties ar further co performan present FI ongoing purchaser the legal h the trans ₹2,00,000 counsel h claim of essential i has been permanen injunction fide claim forgery a whose ver investigat agreemen of Jitender (in CRM-M-3138 0/- was also allegedly made. Learned counsel for petitione oner has been falsely implicated has further iterated that the disp n of a plot of land which is essen e already litigating before the c ontended that the complainant ha nce in the year 2017, which is IR has been lodged only to exert property dispute. Furthermore r and has entered into an Agreem heirs of Bhagwati Devi and has p action, including ₹21,00,000/- 0/- in cash, which is duly refl has emphasized that the petition the complainant over the disp ingredients of the offences alleg further contended that the petiti nt and mandatory injunction n order from the competent Civ m. It has been further contend are based primarily upon the s rsion is disputed and cannot be t tion. Moreover, the authentici nt can only be determined d

84-2026) and cash payment er –– Brij Kishore has iterated t into the FIR in question. Learn pute pertains to the ownership a ntially civil in nature for which competent civil Courts. It has be as instituted a civil suit for speci still pending adjudication and t pressure upon the petitioner in e, the petitioner is a bona f ment to Sell dated 05.01.2026 w paid a sum of ₹23,00,000/- towa - through banking channels a lected in the agreement. Learn ner has no knowledge of any pr puted property and, therefore, ged against him are not attracted ioner has also filed a civil suit and has obtained an ad-inter vil Court which supports his bo ded that the allegations regardi statement of co-vendor Mithile treated as conclusive at the stage ity and validity of the dispu during the course of trial af

of hat ned een ific fide with rds ned rior d. It for rim ona esh, e of ted

appreciati custodial be effecte abscondin evidence, submissio

4.1. has iterate question a relating t counsel h civil suit is pending present cr colour to competen cheat or allegation based upo the cours recovery upon doc investigat abscondin ion of evidence. Learned couns interrogation of the petitioner is ed from him. Moreover, there ng from the process of justice o in case, he is enlarged on pre ons, the grant of anticipatory bail Learned counsel appearing f ed that the petitioner has been as the allegations levelled again to the ownership and possessio has further iterated that the com for specific performance regard g adjudication before the compe riminal proceedings are nothing a purely civil dispute. It has r, being one of the legal hei nt to deal with the property an defraud the complainant. Ac ns regarding fabrication of docu on disputed questions of fact wh se of trial. It has been further is to be effected from the petit cumentary evidence which ar ting agency. Moreover, there i ng from the process of justice o

sel has further submitted that not warranted, as no recovery is is no likelihood of the petition or tampering with the prosecuti e-arrest bail. On strength of the l is entreated for. for the petitioner – Jitender Yad falsely implicated into the FIR nst him arise out of a civil disp on of the disputed plot. Learn mplainant has already instituted ding the property in question wh etent Civil Court, and, therefore g but an attempt to give a crimi s been further contended that irs of late Bhagwati Devi, w nd has no intention whatsoever ccording to learned counsel, uments are unsubstantiated and hich can only be adjudicated duri r submitted that no incriminati tioner and the entire case is bas re already in possession of is no likelihood of the petition or tampering with the prosecuti

s to ner ese dav R in ute ned d a ich nal was to are sed

evidence submissio

¶5petitions involving and crimi case cann revealed participati Learned

19.03.201 complaina delivered electricity other and Sell dated Brij Kish important procurem contended interrogat conspirac allegation petitions b in case he is enlarged on pre-ar ons, the grant of petition in hand Per contra, learned State on the ground that the alle rs are serious in nature and dis cheating, forgery, use of forged inal conspiracy. According to l not be termed as a mere civil material indicating fabricati ion of both the petitioners in State counsel has emphasized 15 was executed by Bhagwati ant pursuant to which possession and construction have been ra y connection. Despite this, the pe d other accused persons, alleged d 05.01.2026 in respect of the sa hore. Furthermore, the petition t role in the preparation of ent of signatures purportedly on d that the investigation is still a tion of both petitioners is n y behind the transaction. In ns and the nature of the material be dismissed.

rrest bail. On the strength of the is entreated for. counsel has opposed both egations raised against both sclose the commission of offenc d documents, criminal intimidati learned State counsel, the pres l dispute as the investigation h ion of documents and act n the alleged illegal transacti that an Agreement to Sell da Devi in favour of father of n of the disputed plot was alleged aised including installation of etitioners, in connivance with ea dly executed another Agreement ame property in favour of petition ner Jitender Yadav has played the forged agreement, includi n behalf of Mithilesh. It has be at a crucial stage and the custod necessary to unravel the larg view of the seriousness of collected, it is prayed that both

ese ces ent has ive on. ted dly ach t to ner an een dial

5.1. the conte dismissal

¶6gone throu

¶7Hon'ble S Kumar C reads as u

¶8against bo Jitender Y as per the Learned senior counsel has entions raised by learned State of the petition(s) in hand. I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c It would be apposite to refer Supreme Court in the case title C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR under: "12. In a case containing suc ought not to have exercised its ju arrest, as the Investigating Of investigation to its logical con appearance before the Investiga from subjecting Respondent No.1 be fruitful to find out the prima f are of extreme serious in nature.

xxx

xxx

¶16In many anticipatory bail m argument being canvassed that and, therefore, anticipatory bail serious misconception of law that made out by the prosecution, the grant anticipatory bail. Custodial aspects to be considered along application seeking anticipatory b the custodial interrogation of the does not mean that the prima fa ignored or overlooked and he sh first and foremost thing that th application should consider is th accused. Thereafter, the nature of with the severity of the punishmen the grounds to decline custodial i interrogation is not required or n to grant anticipatory bail." As per the case put forth in t oth the petitioners are grave an Yadav is alleged to be one of the e prosecution, he was aware of t

raised submission in tandem w e counsel and has prayed for unsel for the rival parties and ha case. herein to a judgment passed by ed as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Ar R (Criminal) 977, relevant where ch serious allegations, the High Co urisdiction in granting protection aga Officer deserves freehand to take nclusion. It goes without saying t ating Officer who, has been preven 1 to custodial interrogation, can har facie substance in the allegations, wh

xxx

xxx matters, we have noticed one comm no custodial interrogation is requi may be granted. There appears to b t if no case for custodial interrogatio n that alone would be a good ground l interrogation can be one of the relev with other grounds while deciding bail. There may be many cases in wh e accused may not be required, but t acie case against the accused should hould be granted anticipatory bail. T he court hearing an anticipatory b he prima facie case put up against f the offence should be looked into alo nt. Custodial interrogation can be one interrogation. However, even if custod ecessitated, by itself, cannot be a grou the FIR in question, the allegatio nd specific. The petitioner nam e legal heirs of Bhagwati Devi a the earlier Agreement to Sell da

with ave run eof ourt inst that nted rdly hich mon ired be a n is d to vant an hich that d be The bail ong e of dial und ons ely

19.03.201 he subseq dated 05. collected ₹5,00,000 Kishore & cash. Furt facilitated vendor M document beneficiar investigat agreemen considera disputed a approache connectio document purely civ concessio of this C cannot be criminal c of cogni including disputed 15 executed in favour of the fath quently participated in the execu

01.2026 in favour of petitioner during the course of investiga 0/- has been transferred into hi & an additional amount of ₹2,0 thermore, as per the prosecution d the execution of the disputed a Mithilesh that she has neither visit t. Similarly, petitioner –– Bri ry of the disputed Agreement tion conducted so far indicat nt with the legal heirs of dec ation pursuant thereto. Apart fr agreement, specific allegations h ed the electricity department fo on in the name of the compl ts in the name of Dharambir. vil in nature does not, at this stag on of anticipatory bail to the petit Court, mere pendency of civil e ignored when prima facie of conspiracy are made out and th zable offences. The material the statement of Mithilesh and signatures, cannot be brushed

her of the complainant. Howev ution of another Agreement to S Brij Kishore. As per the mater ation, it transpires that a sum is bank account by petitioner B 0,000/- has allegedly been paid n, the petitioner Jitender Yadav h agreement despite the claim of c ted Faridabad nor executed the s ij Kishore is alleged to be t to Sell dated 05.01.2026. T tes that he has entered into ceased Bhagwati Devi and p rom being the beneficiary of have been levelled that that he h for disconnection of an electric lainant by allegedly signing The contention that the matter ge, persuade this Court to grant tioner(s). In the considered opini proceedings between the part ffence(s) of cheating, forgery a he allegations disclose commissi l collected during investigati the forensic report concerning d aside at this preliminary sta

ver, Sell rial of Brij d in has co-aid The an aid has city r is ties on,

Whether t be determ

¶9stage, fro falsely im It is befit anticipato individual with the accused; t impact of material o investigat accusation investigat 1039, the the disputed agreement is genui mined during the trial Moreover, no cause nay plau om which it can be deciphered mplicated into the present FIR. Th tting to mention here that whil ory bail, the Court has to e l rights and protecting societal in magnitude and nature of the o the need for fair and free investi f such alleged iniquities on the on record to hold that prima fac r(s). The material which has c tion, appear to be establishe ns. Thus, it is not appropriate r(s), as it would necessarily tion. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as "6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orie well-ensconced with a favourable a case like this, effective inter tremendous advantage in disinter materials which would have interrogation would elude if the protected and insulated by a pre interrogated. Very often interroga a mere ritual. The argument tha with the danger of the person b need not be countenanced, for, su

ine or forged is a matter that sh usible cause has been shown, at t d that the petitioner(s) have be he investigation is at nascent sta le considering a plea for grant equilibrate between safeguardi nterests. The Court ought to reck offence; the role attributed to igation as also the deeper and w society. At this stage, there is cie case is not made out against come on record and prelimina ed a reasonable basis for to grant anticipatory bail to cause impediment in effect 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (C under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ented than questioning a suspect who e order under Section 438 of the Code rrogation of a suspected person is rring many useful informations and a been concealed. Success in s suspected person knows that he is w e-arrest bail order during the time he ation in such a condition would reduce at the custodial interrogation is frau being subjected to third-degree meth uch an argument can be advanced by

hall this een age. of kon ide ary ive Cri) n is o is e. In s of also uch well e is e to ught ods

¶10offence a thorough milieu of

11.

(i) dismissed

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

July 06, 2 Ajay

accused in all criminal cases. Th police officers would conduct th would not conduct themselves as o In view of the gravity of t and the requirement of the cust investigation, this Court is of r(s) do not deserve the concessio the case in hand. In view of the prevenient rati Both the petition(s) are d d. Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

2026

he Court has to presume that responsi hemselves in task of disintering offen offenders." the allegations, the nature of todial interrogation for a fair a f the considered opinion that on of anticipatory bail in the fact iocination, it is ordained thus: evoid of merits and are here hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

ible nces ual