Advocate Accused of Forging High Court Bail Order Denied Anticipatory Bail by Punjab and Haryana HC

Justice Deepak Gupta dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of an advocate accused of fabricating a Punjab and Haryana High Court bail order and cheating complainants of over ₹10.92 lakh, holding that the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing forensic investigation ruled out the extraordinary relief.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 15 June 2026 refused anticipatory bail to Anurag Khullar, also known as Vishal, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana in 2023. Khullar faces FIR No. 81 dated 13 May 2026, registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, for offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution's case rests on allegations that he defrauded two complainants of approximately ₹10.92 lakh by falsely claiming influence over judges and court officials, and by showing them a fabricated bail order purportedly passed by this Court. Justice Deepak Gupta, sitting singly, held that the professional status of an advocate creates no separate standard when the court assesses a prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Allegations in FIR No. 81 of 2026

The FIR was lodged on a joint complaint by Jaspreet Kaur and her brother Pushpinder Singh Bagga. Jaspreet Kaur's husband, Baljit Singh, was lodged in Burail Jail in connection with offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Arms Act. The complainants say they approached Khullar for help in securing bail for Baljit Singh.

According to the complainants, Khullar represented himself as an advocate with strong connections to senior officials and members of the judiciary. He allegedly assured them he could get bail granted and, on that pretext, demanded money from time to time towards expenses for advocates, sureties and other persons. Payments were made through Google Pay, NEFT, UPI and in cash.

The most serious allegation is that Khullar showed the complainants a purported bail order allegedly passed by this Court. The document did not bear any official seal, appeared suspicious on its face, and — according to the prosecution — the matter of Baljit Singh was not even pending before the Bench shown in the forged order. No bail application was, in fact, ever filed. The complainants say they were cheated of approximately ₹10,92,400/-.

Bank account statements obtained during investigation prima facie establish that ₹5,92,000/- was transferred to Khullar through banking channels. The prosecution further alleges that ₹5,00,000/- was paid in cash on 28 August 2025 in the parking area of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. To arrange these sums, complainant Jaspreet Bagga obtained a loan from Aditya Birla Capital Limited on 25 September 2025, and a parcel of land was mortgaged.

The Petitioner's Case for Bail

Mr. Vikrant Rana, appearing for Khullar, argued that the petitioner had been falsely implicated. The defence position was that Khullar is a practising advocate who was professionally engaged by the complainants in relation to Baljit Singh's bail matter. Any dispute over fee or professional charges, counsel submitted, is civil in nature and has been given a criminal colour only to pressurise and harass the petitioner.

On the Prevention of Corruption Act charges, counsel argued that Khullar never claimed to be a public servant and therefore Sections 8 and 12 of the Act are not attracted. It was also submitted that the entire case rests on documentary evidence, bank transactions and electronic records already in the possession of the investigating agency, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. Khullar undertook to join the investigation as and when required.

The defence further contended that Khullar had only examined Baljit Singh's papers and obtained legal opinions from senior advocates before taking any professional decision. It was also alleged that the complainant side has a criminal background and had threatened Khullar and his family, for which he had submitted a representation to the police. Counsel urged that Khullar is a young advocate with roots in society, has no criminal antecedents, and that arrest would cause irreparable injury to his professional reputation.

The State's Opposition and the Forensic Investigation

Ms. Simsi Dhir, Additional Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh, opposed the petition and relied on the status report. On the Prevention of Corruption Act, she argued that Section 8 does not require the accused himself to be a public servant. The gravamen of the allegation is that Khullar demanded and accepted money on the representation that it was required to influence judges, court officials and other public servants. Such conduct, if established, would attract the ingredients of taking gratification for exercising personal influence over public servants.

On the threat plea, the State pointed to a communication dated 5 June 2026 from the ACP, Kalka, recording that Khullar himself informed the police he was no longer facing any threat and would approach the authorities if any such situation arose in future. The State argued that the threat plea was projected only as a defensive measure after the present criminal proceedings were initiated.

The prosecution also placed on record that Khullar has been evading arrest. Several raids were conducted at his known addresses and at the residences of his relatives and in-laws, but he could not be apprehended. Analysis of Call Detail Records and Internet Protocol Detail Records of mobile numbers allegedly used by him did not yield his whereabouts.

A laptop allegedly used by Khullar was recovered from the possession of his wife and sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and retrieval of deleted data. The mobile phone of the complainant was also forwarded for forensic analysis to recover chats, electronic records and other digital evidence. The State submitted that custodial interrogation is indispensable to identify and recover the electronic devices, software and digital records used in preparing the alleged forged order, and that anticipatory bail at this stage may impede investigation and create a possibility of tampering with or destruction of digital evidence.

The State relied on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, and Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, 1994 (4) SCC 260, for the proposition that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary relief and cannot be granted as a matter of course. Reliance was also placed on the Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 (5) SCC 1, which requires the court to consider the nature and gravity of the accusations, the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Deepak Gupta opened his analysis by rejecting the premise that Khullar's status as a practising advocate could itself be a ground for anticipatory bail. The court held that professional status neither places a person above the law nor creates a separate standard for considering a prayer under Section 482 BNSS.

The court assessed the matter on the settled principles governing anticipatory bail: the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the requirement of custodial interrogation, and the overall impact of the alleged conduct on the investigation.

On the facts, the court found that the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates receipt of amounts exceeding ₹10,92,000/- from the complainants. The court emphasised that the allegation is not merely of receipt of professional fee but of obtaining money on the representation that it was required for influencing public officials and securing a favourable judicial order.

The court addressed the forged bail order allegation directly: “any attempt to fabricate judicial records strikes directly at the administration of justice and warrants a thorough and effective investigation.” The court held that the seriousness of such an allegation cannot be understated.

On the question of custodial interrogation, the court accepted the prosecution's position that forensic examination of electronic devices is still in progress. Recovery of the original devices allegedly used for preparation and transmission of the forged documents, identification of accomplices, tracing of digital footprints and retrieval of deleted data were all identified as matters legitimately requiring effective custodial interrogation. The court also took note of the prosecution's assertion that Khullar has been evading arrest despite repeated efforts by the investigating agency.

The court applied the Sushila Aggarwal framework and found that each of the relevant considerations — nature and gravity of accusations, role of the accused, possibility of tampering with evidence, and evasion of arrest — operated against the petitioner.

Outcome

Justice Deepak Gupta dismissed CRM-M-32965-2026 on 15 June 2026. The court recorded that it is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for exercise of the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of granting anticipatory bail, having regard to the nature of accusations, the amount allegedly involved, the requirement of custodial interrogation for recovery and examination of digital evidence, and the stage of investigation.

The court added that any observation made in the order shall be construed only for the purpose of deciding the anticipatory bail petition and shall not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case during trial. The court also noted that CRWP-5498-2026, filed by the complainants and concerning the progress of investigation, is pending before this Court and is fixed for 9 July 2026.