Kishore Sharma @ Lovely vs State of Punjab

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 0079 dated 27.05.2026 under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(2), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(4) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

FIR was registered on statement of Balvir Kaur, who alleged that she was residing in United States of America with her family. She had a property measuring 09 Kanals 18 Marlas situated on the highway at village Raowali, Police Station Maqsudan. A few days ago, on 06.02.2025, Ishwar Chand came to meet her and from him, she learnt that an unknown female impersonated her as Balvir Kaur and an unknown male impersonated himself as Sukhjinder Singh and on the basis of forged documents, including Aadhar Cards, they got a power of attorney prepared in respect of the property. Thereafter, those persons sold the property by using the said power of attorney to Ishwar Chand and obtained ₹75,00,000/- from him as earnest money. Ishwar Chand showed her copy of the agreement to sell, which was executed on 01.03.2025, with respect to the land for total amount of ₹3,46,50,000/-. Earnest money of ₹75 lacs was taken by Sukhjinder Singh, Balvir Kaur, Pardeep Diwan, Kishor Sharma and Varinder Kumar in presence of witnesses Vimal Verma and Harpreet Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He was a reputed 52 years old Civil Engineer and approved valuer with no criminal antecedents. He was implicated on the allegation that he acted as property dealer to facilitate the deal with imposters and the buyer. In fact, his involvement in the transaction was strictly professional, being an approved valuer. He merely conducted property valuation on request of buyer Ishwar Chand. He never met the actual land owner and had no prior connection with the imposters. He acted in good faith, based on public records. Not a single rupee was transferred in his bank account. There was a delay of 14 months in registration of the FIR. Since, case was based on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail arguing that petitioner was actively involved in the fraudulent transaction of sale of the property by an imposter impersonating the complainant. His signatures were not only present on the agreement to sell, there was also a video of him along with others accepting the earnest money. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required to uncover the conspiracy, trace out the co-accused and elicit useful facts. Grant of anticipatory bail would prejudice the course of investigation.

The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the right of the prosecution for free, fair and unhindered investigation as also personal liberty of the accused and interest of the society. Role attributed to the accused is required to be considered with great care and caution. Anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary remedy is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the accused has been falsely involved in the crime.

Considering the nature and substance of allegations against the petitioner, the fact that co-accused are yet to be traced, the gravity of the charge and involvement of the petitioner in the property transaction, it is not a fit case to allow the concession of anticipatory bail. The petition for anticipatory bail is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.