The Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly rejected anticipatory bail for a woman accused of impersonating a property owner to facilitate a fraudulent sale, underscoring that serious allegations of forgery and conspiracy demand custodial interrogation during active investigation. This ruling reinforces the principle that bail cannot be granted as a matter of routine when the accused is alleged to have played a direct role in fabricating documents that caused substantial financial harm.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from FIR No. 0032/2021 registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar, alleging a complex conspiracy to defraud Balbir Kaur, an NRI property owner. While she was residing in the United States, her husband’s associate, Narinder Singh, allegedly arranged for a woman named Gurjeet Kaur to impersonate Balbir Kaur. Using a forged General Power of Attorney dated 01.06.2020, the impersonator executed documents transferring 180 marlas of land to Sunita Duggal for ₹33 lakhs. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, Sarabjit Kaur - Narinder Singh’s wife - was not a passive bystander but an active participant in this scheme.
Procedural History
- 08.04.2021: FIR registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC
- 2025: Petitioner files anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- 09.03.2026: High Court hears arguments and dismisses the petition
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, arguing she was falsely implicated without any direct involvement. She offered to cooperate fully with the investigation, including providing specimen signatures and thumb impressions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 when the accused is alleged to have personally impersonated the victim and facilitated the execution of forged documents in a serious property fraud conspiracy.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the petitioner was never named in the FIR, no document bore her signature, and her only connection was being the wife of the main accused. She had no criminal antecedents, was willing to assist the investigation, and posed no flight risk. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest should not be automatic and bail should be granted where no overt act is attributed.
For the Respondent
The State contended that investigation material indicated the petitioner’s direct involvement in impersonating the complainant and facilitating the forged power of attorney. The case involved multiple accused, forged instruments, and a complex conspiracy. Custodial interrogation was essential to confront her with co-accused, verify the source of the forgery, and recover digital evidence. Granting bail would risk witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation. It rejected the petitioner’s claim of being a mere associate, noting that the prosecution’s case specifically attributed to her the act of impersonating Balbir Kaur during the execution of the forged power of attorney. This was not a case of vicarious liability but of direct participation.
"The role attributed to the present petitioner is not merely peripheral but specific in nature. The investigation suggests that the petitioner impersonated the complainant Balbir Kaur and participated in the preparation of the forged power of attorney in favour of her husband Narinder Singh."
The Court emphasized that forgery of documents relating to immovable property under Sections 465, 467, and 471 IPC constitutes a grave offence, especially when it results in substantial financial loss to an NRI. The fact that the impersonator (Gurjeet Kaur) had already been arrested did not absolve the petitioner of her alleged role. The investigation was still in a critical phase, with material witnesses yet to be examined and potential evidence to be recovered. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the full extent of the conspiracy and to prevent possible collusion or destruction of evidence. The Court also noted that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would undermine the integrity of the investigation.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted where the accused is alleged to have personally impersonated the victim and actively participated in forging documents to defraud an NRI property owner, particularly when the investigation remains active and custodial interrogation is essential.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Impersonation in Property Fraud Bars Anticipatory Bail
- Practitioners must now treat cases involving impersonation of property owners as presumptively ineligible for anticipatory bail
- The Court’s reasoning establishes that direct participation in forgery, even without a signature, suffices to justify custodial interrogation
- Merely being a spouse of the main accused is insufficient to claim innocence; active facilitation is the key test
Investigation Stage Overrides Convenience
- Anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because the accused offers to cooperate
- Courts will prioritize investigative needs over personal convenience when documents are forged and property is fraudulently transferred
- The burden shifts to the applicant to demonstrate why custodial interrogation is unnecessary - not just that they are cooperative
Forgery of Title Documents Is a Grave Offence
- Cases under Sections 465, 467, and 471 IPC involving land titles now carry heightened scrutiny for bail
- The value of the property and the victim’s NRI status are aggravating factors under judicial interpretation
- Courts will not treat such fraud as a civil dispute; criminal intent and conspiracy are presumed from the nature of the act
