Ravinder Sharma vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

This case concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Ravinder Sharma (the petitioner) under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petition relates to FIR No. 139 dated 11.04.2025, registered at Gobindgarh police station, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by Mittul Gupta, alleging that one Soni Rishi, impersonated by the petitioner, created fake firms, including 'M/s Neelkanth Enterprises' and 'Ganpati Jewellers', to claim GST input tax credit and generate fake funds. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, using the Aadhaar Card of Soni Rishi, executed a sale deed by impersonating Soni Rishi and forging his signatures. The petitioner claims innocence and false implication.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of pre-arrest bail. The Court found that there are specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner for impersonating himself as 'Soni Rishi' and executing a sale deed of property belonging to 'Soni Rishi' by using his Aadhaar Card and forging his signatures. The Court noted that the photograph of the vendor taken at the Sub-Registrar's office confirmed it was the petitioner who executed the sale deed and forged the signatures. The Court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, only in exceptional cases where strong reasons exist. Citing various Supreme Court judgments, including 'Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar' and 'Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab', the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not a routine matter and should not be granted when serious offences are alleged and custodial interrogation is necessary for investigation. The Court concluded that given the gravity of the alleged offences of fraud and forgery, and the role played by the petitioner, custodial interrogation is required, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The application was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of impersonation and forgery under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He argued that no offence was committed by him and that the allegations in the FIR do not amount to the commission of the stated offences. Reliance was placed on observations in 'Nirbhai Singh & Ors. V/s State of Punjab' and 'Budh Ram V/s State of Haryana'. The petitioner also argued that the complainant is a stranger to the rights of 'Soni Rishi', and therefore, an FIR for the commission of offences under Sections 467/471 IPC should not have been registered. Selling property belonging to another person cannot be treated as an offence under these sections. The petitioner cited 'Md. Ibrahim & Ors. V/s State of Bihar & Anr.' to support this contention. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that there are specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner, who allegedly indulged in illegal activity by impersonating himself as 'Soni Rishi' and executing a sale deed using the Aadhaar Card and forged signatures of 'Soni Rishi'. The State contended that the photograph of the vendor clicked at the time of registration of the sale deed proved it was the petitioner who executed the sale deed and forged the signatures. The State also argued that custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the entire racket.