Raghav Mahajan vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court held that while the Court is not to conclusively determine authenticity at the anticipatory bail stage, the material sufficiently indicated the petitioner's prima facie involvement in the preparation and use of a forged document. The Court noted that the rent deed was unsigned by the owner, who categorically denied its execution. Bank transfers shown by the petitioner lacked narration specifying 'rent,' and cash entries in a private ledger held no probative value against the owner's denial. The injunction order protecting possession did not validate the rent deed or preclude FIR registration. The Court found that the allegations were specific and supported by cogent material, refuting the contention that the dispute was merely civil. Deception and dishonest inducement, forming the foundation of the transaction, brought it within the ambit of Section 420 IPC. The Court emphasized that granting anticipatory bail at this preliminary stage could hamper the recovery of crucial evidence, and the petitioner's conduct did not inspire confidence. The Court cited State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, for the proposition that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented and crucial for disinterring concealed information, and that pre-arrest bail can reduce interrogation to a mere ritual. Consequently, the Court found the petitioner failed to make out a case for anticipatory bail, and custodial interrogation might be necessary for an effective investigation.

Facts

The petitioner, Raghav Mahajan, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 108 dated 24.08.2025, registered for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC. The FIR stemmed from a complaint by Kishan Singh alleging that Indu Mahajan, along with her sons Raghav Mahajan (petitioner) and Rajat Mahajan, and nephew Sanjeev Mahajan, submitted a forged rent deed to the GST Department. The complainant, a GPA holder for the property owner Ashwani Sabharwal, stated that the rent deed was never executed or signed by the owner and was accepted by the GST Department without noticing this defect. The petitioner contended that the FIR was a counterblast to civil proceedings and that he had a valid tenancy, with the civil court having restrained GPA holders from interfering with his possession. He argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that the allegations were baseless.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of forgery and cheating. The petitioner argued that the FIR was a counterblast to civil proceedings, intended to exert pressure for dispossession. He asserted that the allegations were baseless, lacking credible material, and constituted an abuse of process. He further submitted that custodial interrogation was not required as nothing incriminating needed recovery, and he was unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the offence was serious, involving forgery and fabrication of documents submitted to a government department. The State contended that custodial interrogation was essential to trace the preparation of the forged deed, determine its use, and identify beneficiaries. Granting bail, it was argued, would hamper the investigation, allow tampering with evidence, and influence witnesses.