AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present 2nd petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0114 dated 20.06.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 61 of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Shahzadpur, District Ambala.
The last anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.08.2026 passed in CRM-M-41768-2026 with liberty to file afresh, on the same cause of action, after giving complete/ appropriate details of the antecedents of the petitioner.
The role attributed to the petitioner, as per reply dated 21.08.2026 of the State, reads thus:
"9.The petitioner-accused is duly named in the FIR. He played an active role in hatching the conspiracy with other accused persons and adduced and allured the complainants for the purchase of their land at Baghwala Road and under the guise of registration of sale deeds of the said land he got entered the land of the complainants situated at National Highway, Kakkar Majra. Thereafter, when the complainants get into knowledge about the above said act of the petitioner-accused and they contacted him for return of the said land then the petitioner-accused agreed for returning the said land to them for an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. The complainants paid the said amount to petitioner-accused. Despite receiving the payment, the petitioner-accused did not execute the sale deed in their favour and also threatened them unto death."
Learned senior counsel has submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merits. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It has been contended that the sale deed in respect of the land in question was duly executed in favour of the petitioner and the entire sale consideration was transferred through RTGS to the accounts of the sellers, which is duly substantiated by the relevant bank statements. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that, on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, mutation was also duly sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that an application for partition has also been preferred before the competent authority, which is pending adjudication. Learned senior counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner has instituted Civil Suit No.109 of 2026 seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants therein. According to learned senior counsel, even assuming that there was any discrepancy or deficiency in the sale consideration, the complainant-side could have availed the appropriate remedy; however, no civil suit has been instituted at the end of the complainant to the effect that the sale deed in question is bad. Learned senior counsel has, thus, contended that, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no offence of cheating, whatsoever, is made out against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has urged that as the price of the land in question has been increased, therefore, the entire controversy/mischief is being created against the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. It has been urged that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 21.08.2026, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been argued that the petitioner, by alluring the complainant, got the sale deed registered in respect of a different parcel of land belonging to the complainant, which the complainant had never intended to sell. Learned State counsel has also submitted that the petitioner does not bear clean antecedents and there are other FIR(s) registered against him. It has been further argued that investigation, in the present case, is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. It has been contended that, in case, the petitioner is accorded concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also influence/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. A perusal of the prosecution case as well as the material available on record prima facie reveals that the petitioner, by alluring and misleading the complainant, procured registration of the sale deed in respect of a different parcel of land belonging to the complainant, which the complainant had neither intended nor agreed to sell. Perusal of the reply filed by the State further, prima facie, shows that, upon coming to know of the aforesaid act of the petitioner, the complainant approached him, whereupon the petitioner allegedly agreed to return the said land to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-. It is further borne out from the State reply that, despite the complainant having paid the aforesaid amount to the petitioner, the petitioner neither executed the sale deed in respect of the said land in favour of the complainant nor returned the amount so received. Rather, the petitioner allegedly extended threats to the complainant to kill him. The nature of allegations does not persuade this Court to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
That apart, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). The said criminal antecedents reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a tendency to indulge in criminal activities. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the concession of bail, or interfere with the fair course of justice. The possibility of his absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled out, particularly in view of his repeated involvement in criminal cases.
No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.
It is befitting to mention here that while considering plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under:
"6.We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record, preliminary investigation, serious allegations and the petitioner having no clean antecedents, appear to establish a reasonable basis for his accusation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.