Rajender vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail without commenting on the merits of the case. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that his alleged act of standing as a guarantor for obtaining a GST number/license was subsequent to the alleged fabrication of the lease deed. The Court found that this subsequent action, even if true, did not directly connect the petitioner to the primary crime of fabricating the lease deed, especially as he was neither a party nor a witness to its execution. The Court held that the petitioner's involvement, as presented, was not sufficient to deny him the concession of anticipatory bail at this stage. The operative direction was that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, and he must join the investigation as and when called upon and abide by the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajender, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 242 dated August 13, 2020, registered under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani. The petitioner claims the FIR is baseless, arising from civil litigation initiated by him concerning a trust property. He asserts no connection to Plot No. 50 or the business there, only to Plot No. 49. The State contended that the petitioner's name is in the FIR, alleging his sister-in-law and brother created a fake lease deed from their deceased father (who died in 1997) to obtain a GST number/license, with the petitioner acting as guarantor. The State argued the investigation is at an initial stage and requires document recovery, thus opposing anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 242 dated 13.8.2020, registered under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the FIR is a consequence of civil disputes initiated by him regarding a trust property, and he has no connection to the business at Plot No. 50, only to Plot No. 49. He further contended that even if he stood as a guarantor for obtaining a GST number/license, this was an act subsequent to the alleged fabrication of the lease deed and does not connect him to the crime of fabrication itself. The execution of the lease deed is a document-related matter with which he is not involved. State's Arguments: The State argued that the petitioner's name is specifically mentioned in the FIR. It was alleged that his brother and sister-in-law created a fake lease deed purportedly executed by their father (who had died in 1997) to obtain a GST number/license, and the petitioner stood as a guarantor. The State emphasized that the investigation is in its initial stages and requires recovery of documents related to the fake lease deed, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.