The court emphasized the seriousness of allegations involving a forged judicial order and the misuse of funds, underscoring the need for custodial interrogation.
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Anurag Khullar @ Vishal, a practicing advocate, accused of fabricating a forged judicial order and misusing funds. The judgment was delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta, who highlighted the gravity of the allegations and the necessity for custodial interrogation to ensure a thorough investigation.
The case originated from an FIR filed on May 13, 2026, by complainants Jaspreet Kaur and Pushpinder Singh Bagga. They alleged that Khullar, under the guise of securing bail for Kaur's husband, Baljit Singh, who was incarcerated in connection with a criminal case, demanded and received approximately Rs.10.92 lakh. The payments were made under the pretext of covering expenses for advocates, sureties, and other individuals.
The complainants further alleged that Khullar presented them with a suspicious bail order purportedly from the High Court, which lacked an official seal and was later found to be forged. It was claimed that no actual bail application was filed, leading to accusations of cheating and corruption against Khullar.
Khullar's defense argued that the matter was civil, pertaining to professional fees, and that he had been falsely implicated. He claimed that being a practicing advocate, he should not be subject to custodial interrogation and asserted that the complainants had criminal backgrounds. However, the prosecution provided substantial evidence, including bank statements and electronic records, corroborating the complainants' claims.
The court, in its judgment, underscored that being a practicing advocate does not place an individual above the law. It was noted that the allegations involved not just monetary fraud but also the serious offense of fabricating a judicial order, which undermines the integrity of the judicial system. The court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to recover digital evidence and further the investigation.
In its decision, the court referenced landmark cases such as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), reiterating that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief not to be granted lightly, especially when the accusations are grave.
The denial of anticipatory bail is a clear message that the judiciary takes allegations of forgery and corruption seriously, particularly when they threaten the sanctity of judicial proceedings. The investigation continues as authorities seek to uncover further evidence and ensure justice is served.
Bottom line:-
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted solely on the basis that the accused is a practicing advocate. The seriousness of allegations involving fabrication of a forged judicial order and misuse of funds requires custodial interrogation for effective investigation.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Anurag Khullar @ Vishal v. U.T. Chandigarh, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2929007
