Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swati And Another vs State Of Punjab on 10 February, 2026
CRM-M No.2957 of 2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
213
CRM-M No.2957 of 2026
Date of decision: 10.02.2026
Swati and another ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Ms. Tania Mahajan, Advocate and
Mr. Akshit Grover, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
----
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.337 dated 29.11.2024 registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). Their first petition had been dismissed by this Court on 22.12.2025 by making the following observations:-
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2026 23:23:11 ::: CRM-M No.2957 of 2026 -2- "6. The petitioners in connivance with the co-accused are alleged to have prepared a cross-signed letter dated 01.11.2021 purported to be issued by the company in which they were employees, showing that the plot in question was allotted to Taranjeet Singh Beniwal in the year 2021, though, as per the allegations, it was accused-GS Ghuman, who was the allottee of that plot. The allegations prima facie suggest the complicity of the petitioners in commission of offences of cheating and forgery. For the purpose of eliciting information as to the manner in which the crime was committed and for proper investigation, their custodial interrogation is required. Even otherwise, no exceptional and extra-ordinary circumstance for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out in their favour. The well-
settled proposition of law is that the powers under Section 482 of BNSS are to be exercised in exceptional and extra-ordinary circumstances but no such circumstance has been made out in this case. There are specific allegations against them. The case is at its nascent stage. In case the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps thereby adversely affecting the investigation. The Court is also required to see that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed."
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the sole 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2026 23:23:12 ::: CRM-M No.2957 of 2026 -3- basis for implicating them is an office communication dated 01.11.2021 which had been signed by them in routine course. Infact, the above mentioned date had been mentioned in the said communication as an inadvertent clerical error arising out of copy pasted standard office format. The document in question was infact generated on 08.02.2024 for facilitating registration of the sale deed which is a mandatory procedural requirement. The dispatch register maintained by the office of the petitioners shows continuous and sequential entries to this effect thereby proving their bonafides and also proving that this document had been prepared and signed by them only on 08.02.2024 and was not an antedated document. They are not beneficiary to the alleged transaction. They are simply employees of M/s Preet Land Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. The case is based on documentary evidence. The fact that the date on the abovementioned document was wrongly mentioned as 01.11.2021 could not be mentioned in the previous petition. Now this fact has come into the notice of the petitioners and amounts to a subsequent change in the circumstance thereby entitling them to seek concession of anticipatory bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed and they deserve to be extended benefit of pre arrest bail.
3. Status report has been filed. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that there is no substantive or drastic change in the circumstances eversince the dismissal of the previous petition. This 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2026 23:23:12 ::: CRM-M No.2957 of 2026 -4- petition is a successive petition, filed within a period of 23 days of dismissal of the previous petition and on that very ground is not maintainable. The petitioners have now tried to cover up the wrong committed by them by taking a plea that the date on the relevant document had been incorrectly mentioned due to some inadvertence. The petitioners are in a position to manipulate the record of their company. They are avoiding their arrest by hook or by crook. No exceptional circumstance for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
4. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
5. The petitioners are alleged to have prepared a false document dated 01.11.2021 to defeat the rights of the complainant thereby committing offences of forgery and cheating. In the previous petition, no plea was taken to the effect that the letter which was alleged to be fabricated, was infact issued on 08.02.2024, as claimed by them now. The plea as taken in this petition cannot be stated to be some drastic or substantive change in the circumstances as the same was very much available to them at the time of filing of their previous petition. Even otherwise, the allegations prima facie show their complicity in the crime of fabricating and forging record to facilitate commission of offence of cheating by the co-accused. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation in the matter, their custodial interrogation is must. They 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2026 23:23:12 ::: CRM-M No.2957 of 2026 -5- have failed to show any such new exceptional or extraordinary circumstance thereby entitling them to extend benefit of pre arrest bail. As such, this Court finds no reason to allow the petition and hence, the same is dismissed.
6. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
10.02.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2026 23:23:12 :::