Dayaram Bhadana vs State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of complaint submitted by the complainant Smt. Pista Devi alleging therein that she owned 2 Kanal 5 Marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Gazipur. She had visited her land sometime back and came to know that the present petitioner, co-accused Mohd. Hafiz alias Pehalwan who are property dealers had carved out plots from her land in an illegal manner. She had reported the matter to DCP NIT, Faridabad. Before Economic Offences Wing Cell, the petitioner and co-accused had assured to pay a sum of Rs.2,16,00,000/- within five months. They had issued two cheques for this amount. However, those cheques were dishonoured.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 22.07.2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Ganga Ram, father-in-law of the complainant who was the owner of 11 Kanals 4 Marlas of land had executed an agreement to sell the same in favour of the petitioner and co-accused Mohd. Hafiz in April 2013. An amount of Rs.53,50,000/- was given by the petitioner to Ganga Ram. However, since, Ganga Ram failed to procure the required NOC from the office of District Town Planner, sale deed could not be executed in favour of the petitioner and co-accused. Several extension deeds were, however, executed by Ganga Ram.

It is further argued that Ganga Ram had executed a General Power of Attroney qua 1 Kanal of the land in favour of accused Mohd. Hafiz and the petitioner was only an attesting witness to the said deed. He had not honoured the agreement. The complainant in connivance with her father-in-law had filed a civil suit in the year 2022 claiming possession and ownership over the land in question. However, no interim relief has been granted to the complainant in that suit which is still pending. The possession of the land which was the subject matter of agreement had been delivered to the petitioner and co-accused long back. It was only under the pressure of police that two post dated security cheques had been issued by him and the co-accused. There is collusion between the police authorities and the complainant. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature which has been given a criminal colour. The complainant has been making contradictory claims with regard to possession. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC are not attracted as against the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. AG, Haryana has advance notice of the petition. Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate has also appeared on behalf of the complainant on advance notice. It is argued by learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. No registered sale deed had been executed in favour of the petitioner and the co-accused qua 11 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land owned by the father-in-law of the complainant. He had relinquished 2 Kanals 5 Marlas of land in favour of the complainant. The petitioner had agreed to purchase 11 Kanals 4 Marlas of land for a sum of Rs.3,34,40,000/- but had made only partial payment and did not get any sale deed registered. GPA in respect of only 1 Kanal of land was executed by father-in-law of the complainant in favour of accused Mohd. Hafiz. However, the petitioner and the co-accused in connivance with each other illegally carved out plots and sold entire 11 Kanals 4 Marlas of land. The allegations make out a case of deep rooted conspiracy. For the purpose of proper and thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance for grant of pre arrest bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

The petitioner along with the co-accused had admittedly entered into an agreement to purchase 11 Kanals 4 Marlas of land owned by the father-in-law of the complainant. The complainant had become co-sharer in this land by way of relinquishment of the some share in her favour. The documents placed on record have revealed that the petitioner and co-accused had issued cheques for a sum of Rs.2,16,00,000/- in favour of complainant/her father-in-law for the purpose of purchase of land. However, those cheques have been dishonoured. The allegations also point out that in an illegal manner, plots have been carved out from the land owned by father-in-law of the complainant/complainant. For the purpose of conducting investigation in a proper manner to unearth the entire conspiracy, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. The powers of anticipatory bail are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.