Indu Mahajan And Another vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court held that the petitioners had failed to make out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court found that the allegations against the petitioners were grave and serious, involving forgery of tenancy documents and their use before a government authority (GST Department). The Court noted the categorical denial of the rent deed's execution by the owner and the finding of forgery by the police. The Court reasoned that granting anticipatory bail at this preliminary stage, when the investigation was ongoing and custodial interrogation might be necessary, would hamper the investigation and potentially allow the petitioners to tamper with evidence. The Court emphasized the need to balance individual rights with societal interests and the magnitude of the offence. Citing the Supreme Court's observations in State v. Anil Sharma, the Court stated that effective interrogation is crucial in such cases. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no material to establish a prima facie case against the petitioners for granting anticipatory bail.

Facts

The petitioners, Indu Mahajan and Raghav Mahajan, sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR stemmed from a complaint by Kishan Singh, alleging that petitioner No.1, Indu Mahajan, submitted a forged rent deed to the GST Department. This deed, allegedly prepared without the owner's knowledge and unsigned, was used to obtain GST registration. The complainant further alleged that this act was done in connivance with petitioner No.2, Raghav Mahajan, and his nephew, Rajat Mahajan, to dishonestly deceive the GST Department and the government. The petitioners contended that they were tenants of the property since 2006 and had been paying rent, and that a civil court had restrained the GPA holders from interfering with their possession. They argued the FIR was a counterblast to civil proceedings and intended to exert pressure to forcibly dispossess them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners have made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharat Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of forgery and cheating? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the FIR was a counterblast to civil proceedings and intended to exert pressure for their dispossession. They claimed the allegations were baseless, devoid of credible material, and that the prosecution narrative was an abuse of process. They asserted no incriminating material was recovered and there was no likelihood of them absconding or tampering with evidence. They further argued that the civil court had already restrained interference with their possession. Revenue/State's arguments: The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, arguing that the offences committed were serious. They contended that the rent deed was unsigned by the owner and categorically denied by him. The State highlighted that the inquiry by senior police officers found a clear case of forgery and use of false documents before a government department. They emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to trace the beneficiaries of the forged deed and determine the extent of its use.