'Being Advocate No Ground For Anticipatory Bail': Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Relief To Lawyer Accused Of Forging Bail Order

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by an Advocate accused of cheating, forging a bail order to defraud complainants of over ₹10 lakh. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 207]Justice Deepak Gupta said, “Merely because the petitioner is a practicing advocate cannot constitute a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. The status of a profession neither places a person above the law nor creates a separate standard for considering a prayer under Section 482 BNSS.”The Court further added that, “it is required to assess the matter on the touchstone of settled principles governing anticipatory bail, namely 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 upon the investigation.”The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR lodged on May 13, 2026, registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.As per the prosecution, the complainants approached the petitioner for securing bail for a relative lodged in jail. The petitioner allegedly misrepresented himself as having strong connections with judicial officers and assured them of obtaining bail. On this pretext, he is said to have collected approximately ₹10.92 lakh through bank transfers and cash.It was further alleged that the petitioner showed the complainants a purported bail order of the High Court, which appeared suspicious and did not bear any official seal. Investigation revealed that no such bail application had been filed.Counsel for the petitioner argued that he is a duly enrolled advocate and had been professionally engaged by the complainants. It was contended that the dispute, if any, was purely civil in nature relating to professional fees and had been given a criminal colour.It was also argued that no custodial interrogation was required as the case was based on documentary and electronic evidence already in possession of the investigating agency. The petitioner denied having claimed to be a public servant and challenged the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act provisions.The State opposed the plea, submitting that the allegations were supported by documentary and electronic evidence, including bank records establishing transfer of substantial amounts. It further highlighted that a portion of the money had been arranged by the complainants through loans and mortgaging property.It was also submitted that the petitioner had been evading arrest and that forensic examination of electronic devices was ongoing, necessitating his custodial interrogation.The Court observed that merely being a practicing advocate does not entitle a person to anticipatory bail and that such status cannot place anyone above the law.It noted that the material on record prima facie indicated receipt of over ₹10.92 lakh and that the allegations went beyond a simple fee dispute, involving inducement and representations of influencing public officials.The Court underscored the gravity of the allegation regarding fabrication of a judicial order, stating that such acts strike at the foundation of the administration of justice and require thorough investigation.Further, considering that forensic examination of digital evidence was underway and the petitioner had allegedly been evading arrest, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary.Taking into account the nature and gravity of the accusations, the amount involved, and the requirement of custodial interrogation, the Court held that no case was made out for grant of anticipatory bail.Title: ANURAG KHULLAR @ VISHAL v. U.T. ChandigarhCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (PH) 207Mr. Vikrant Rana, Advocate, for the Petitioner.Ms. Simsi Dhir, A.P.P., UT, ChandigarhClick here to read order

'Being Advocate No Ground For Anticipatory Bail': Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Relief To Lawyer Accused Of Forging Bail Order

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

'Being Advocate No Ground For Anticipatory Bail': Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Relief To Lawyer Accused Of Forging Bail Order

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers