Manjit vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Manjit Singh, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 247 dated 19.11.2024, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 448, and 120-B IPC. The complainant alleged that accused persons, including Tejinderpal Singh, prepared forged partnership deeds and agreements, fabricating signatures to claim rights in property. The petitioner allegedly purchased a flat for Rs. 8,60,000/- from the accused. An inquiry revealed discrepancies in documents, including differing GST particulars and formats. Initially, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on 16.04.2025, subject to the outcome of an FSL report on signatures. Upon receiving an adverse FSL report indicating forged signatures, the prosecution applied for cancellation of bail, which was granted on 06.04.2026.

Held

The Court held that the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner was conditional upon the outcome of the FSL report. The order dated 16.04.2025 explicitly stated that if the FSL report revealed forged signatures, the investigating agency would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Upon receipt of an adverse FSL report, which indicated material dissimilarities in the signatures, the condition on which the protection was granted was breached. Therefore, the learned lower court did not commit any illegality in cancelling the anticipatory bail. The Court also noted that the allegations in the FIR were serious, involving preparation and use of forged documents, cheating, and unlawful retention of property, and not merely a civil dispute. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary to ascertain the manner of preparation of forged documents and the involvement of other persons. The plea that the dispute was purely civil was rejected in light of the forgery allegations supported by the FSL report. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's anticipatory bail, based on an adverse FSL report, amounts to an impermissible review of the earlier bail order under Section 362 Cr.P.C. (now Section 403 BNSS)? 2. Whether the mere receipt of an adverse FSL report, without any allegation of misuse of bail or interference with investigation, warrants cancellation of anticipatory bail? 3. Whether the FSL report, being expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, is conclusive evidence of forgery, especially when the petitioner alleges incorrect specimen signatures were used and the report is not definitive? Petitioner's arguments: The cancellation order is illegal and amounts to reviewing the earlier order. No bail conditions were violated. An adverse FSL report is not a supervening circumstance for cancellation without misuse. The liberty to seek cancellation was procedural, not conferring power to review. The FSL report is not conclusive, is advisory, and requires corroboration. The report is not definitive regarding forgery. No specific forgery allegations are against the petitioner, and the dispute is civil. Incorrect specimen signatures were allegedly used. Respondent's arguments: The anticipatory bail was granted subject to the condition of the FSL report. The FSL report found dissimilarities in signatures. The prosecution rightly moved for cancellation based on the adverse report and the need for custodial interrogation. The lower court rightly cancelled bail considering the FSL findings and the requirement for further investigation.