AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
| Name & age of petitioner | FIR No. | Date | Section(s) | Police Station | District |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dheeraj Narang (49 years) | 298 | 17.12.2023 | 406, 420, 506, 120-B IPC and 82 of Registration Act | Sahnewal | Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana |
While issuing notice, following was recorded on 24.12.2025:-
1.xxx
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that for the purchase of land in question measuring 9,540 square yards at the rate of Rs.84,000/- per square yard, complainant, namely, Bharat Bhushan Dawar, entered into an agreement to sell with the owner of the property, namely Jai Inder Pal Singh, Director of Idea Infra (P) Ltd. An amount of Rs.1.40 crores was received by the owner/seller, Jai Inder Pal Singh (co-accused), as earnest money. However, the said deal did not mature and, thereafter, certain settlements were arrived at between the seller and the buyer.
3.It is further submitted that vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in CRM-M-60385-2024 (Annexure P-6), co-accused Jai Inder Pal Singh was granted the concession of interim regular bail by this Court, which he enjoyed for a period of nearly seven months. Subsequently, the regular bail petition filed by the said co-accused was dismissed, vide order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-7), with directions to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate to issue non-bailable warrants to secure his re-arrest and to lodge him back to judicial custody.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is not the actual beneficiary of the transaction and was merely acting as a dealer representing the seller to facilitate and conclude the deal. It is alleged that during the course of the transactions, an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was paid to the petitioner in cash.
5.Notice of motion.
6.On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent – State, and seeks some time to file status report in the matter.
7.Adjourned to 21.01.2026.
To be shown in the urgent list.
8.Let the status report be filed by learned State counsel on or before the next date of hearing, specifically highlighting therein the role attributed to the petitioner and the evidence collected against him.
9.On the next date of hearing, learned State counsel shall also explain as to why the main accused, Jai Inder Pal Singh, has not been arrested till date, despite the specific observations made by this Court regarding the issuance of non-bailable warrants against him. Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned area shall also file a response on the said issue.
10.At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that before the Court below on 14.08.2025 (Annexure P-4), a statement was made on behalf of the State to the effect that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required.
11.In the light of the above, petitioner shall not be arrested, till the next date of hearing. However, issue of joining of investigation by the petitioner would be examined on the next date of hearing, after reviewing the status report, which is yet to be filed by learned State counsel.”
Subsequently, to highlight the other instances, complainant had also placed on record the details of other criminal cases registered against the petitioner i.e. FIR No.80 dated 28.06.2026 (Annexure C-1) and FIR No.274 dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure C-2). Taking note of the other instances, wherein petitioner is one of the accused in playing fraud with the perspective purchaser, taking a lenient view, petitioner was granted an opportunity to compensate respondent No.2 on 16.07.2026 and said opportunity was again extended by this Court, vide order dated 21.07.2026.
Learned counsel for the petitioner expresses his inability that his client (petitioner herein) did not accede to his request as well and he is not ready to pay anything to compensate respondent No.2.
Considering the allegations against the petitioner, who being a property dealer/middleman, received Rs.20 Lakh and as per prosecution/ complainant, he is involved in several other cases along with the same set of accused as in the present case in playing fraud with people in general, this Court does not find any substantial reason to grant any further opportunity to the petitioner, rather he does not deserve the discretionary concessional relief. Therefore, petition is dismissed. The Investigating Officer is directed to proceed in accordance with law immediately without any delay to avoid any disciplinary action from the superior authorities.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.