Daler Singh vs State of Punjab

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.79 dated 24.06.2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) [Sections 336(2)(3), 337, 339, 340 of BNS added later on] at Police Station IT City, SAS Nagar.

The present case was registered on the basis of complaint given to the police by Ravinder Goyal with the allegations that on 11.03.2025, he was approached by Daler Singh (petitioner) and Baljit Singh, who were previously known to him and they offered to sell a piece of land measuring 4 kanals situated at Village Bakarpur, District Mohali in his favour which was owned by one Harbans Singh. Thereafter, meeting was arranged with said Harbans Singh and his son namely Kamal and he also inspected the said property where they met Harjit and Hardeep Singh, who claimed to be Panch of Village Matran. The said Harjit and Hardeep Singh represented that they had facilitated the purchase of the said property by Harbans Singh from its previous owner and they assured him that the same was free from encumbrances or legal dispute. Relying on the representation and assurance of the accused which were made with the intention to induce him to purchase the property, an oral agreement was executed and he paid the token amount to Harbans Singh and his son Kamal. On 05.06.2025, a Sale Deed was executed in his favour and he paid the entire sale consideration to the vendor. When he visited the property after registration of the Sale Deed to take possession, he was confronted by some unknown individuals who threatened him with dire consequences and they claimed that the land belongs to some other person. On inquiry, it was revealed that one Nazir Singh held a GPA which was allegedly executed by the original owner of the property who has since died. Said Nazir Singh had no legal authority to deal with the property and it also came to his knowledge that the petitioner, Baljeet Singh, Harbans Singh, Kamal, Harjit, Harbans Singh and Nazir Singh had acted in collusion with each other and after hatching a conspiracy, they had defrauded him by misrepresenting that the property was free from encumbrances. When he confronted the accused, they failed to give any satisfactory explanation or documentation to substantiate their claim over the property and hence he sought action against them.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for the grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, vide order dated 11.07.2025.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients for the commission of offences for which he has been booked are not made out against him. There is no allegation of entrustment of any property to him. The only allegation levelled against him is that of introducing the complainant to co-accused Harbhans Singh and facilitating a meeting between them. There is an unexplained delay of 12 days in the lodging of the FIR. A compromise has been arrived at between the parties, and the amount allegedly taken from the complainant has already been returned. Furthermore, a petition seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise has been filed by the petitioner and the co-accused, which is currently pending before this Court. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. He is ready and willing to join the investigation. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

Learned State counsel has, however, submitted that taking into consideration the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

The petitioner is alleged to have induced the complainant to part with money on account of the sale of some property and to have duped him of the same. The petitioner has, however, entered into a compromise with the complainant. Though much relevance cannot be given to the factum of a compromise arrived at between the parties, however, taking into consideration the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as well as the fact that the amount received from the complainant is stated to have been returned, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for pre-trial incarceration is made out and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. It is even otherwise a well-settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. As such a case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly. the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail, subject to his joining investigation and surrendering within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and upon doing so, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to his satisfaction.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.