AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
| Name of Petitioner(s) | FIR No. | Date | Section(s) | Police Station | District |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sonu Malik, aged about 45 years | 14 | 28.01.2026 | 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860) | Mullanpur Garibdass | SAS Nagar (Mohali) |
Case of the prosecution, as discussed in the order dated 07.04.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Annexure P-5), is reproduced here under, for reference:-
"Present FIR was registered consequent to application moved by the complainant Manjit Singh, who submitted before the police that in the month of June 2025, complainant approached Bharpoor Singh son of Swaran Singh, who represented himself to be authorized for selling land of Jaspal Singh son of Sher Singh and Bharpoor Singh was introduced to him by dealers namely Sonu Malik (present petitioner) and Amjad Khan. It was apprised that Jaspal Singh had authorised Bharpoor Singh through agreement/document dated 25.03.2025 and Bharpoor Singh entered into agreement to sell on 06.06.2025 in respect of 12 bigha of land in favour of the complainant and the stipulated date i.e. 22.08.2025 was fixed for registration of sale deed. At the time of entering into the agreement, complainant paid 50% of the earnest money in cash vide the remaining money was paid through cheques. Complainant further rued that after about one week of entering into the agreement, the cheques issued by him were not presented by Bharpoor Singh in his bank. Upon asking the reasons, he failed to give any satisfactory reply but when complainant insisted, he told that his accounts have been sealed due to non deposition of requisite Income Tax, whereas, the said accounts were already sealed prior to the agreement. Thereafter, he sought some time and when on 27.06.2025, he was contacted on phone, Bharpoor Singh refused to present the cheques in his account for encashment and asked them to cancel the agreement and also told the complainant that he would return the cash amount as and when the same will be available with him. On 01.07.2025, complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel to Bharpoor Singh as well as the owner of the land namely Jaspal Singh, which were received by them. Thereafter, on 08.07.2025, Amjad Khan, property dealer made him talk to Bharpoor Singh on his phone, whereby Bharpoor Singh was asked either to present the cheques in his account for encashment and in case, same is not possible, the agreement be treated as cancelled and the cheques as well as cash amount be returned to the complainant. However, Bharpoor Singh started abusing the complainant over the phone and also threatened him with dire consequences. In this way, Bharpoor Singh in connivance with his cohorts hatched a criminal conspiracy and thereby, defrauded him of around 1 crore rupees cash, which was received by him."
Consequently, on the basis of the above said allegations and after inquiry, FIR in question was registered against the accused persons including the present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no active role has been attributed to him in the FIR. It is submitted that petitioner is one of the attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell dated 06.06.2025 and, being a property broker, had merely introduced co-accused Amjad Khan to the complainant, namely, Manjit Singh, and facilitated the land deal.
Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is inside jail since 04.03.2026, and has undergone incarceration for a total period of 05 months and 25 days. It is further submitted that charges in the present case have not yet been framed and, therefore, conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time.
Additionally, learned counsel submits that co-accused Amjad Khan has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 18.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-11038-2026 (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel, accordingly, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.
In response to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.
As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 05 months and 25 days period inside jail.
Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, considering the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the other accused persons in the present case, petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present petition.
This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the record available before it.
Undoubtedly, co-accused Amjad Khan has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 18.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-11038-2026 (Annexure P-7).
While considering the petitions seeking anticipatory bail filed by co-accused Amjad Khan (CRM-M-11038-2026) and Bharpur Singh (CRM-M-17874-2026), this Court, vide common order dated 18.05.2026 (Annexure P-7), had taken note of the facts and circumstances of the present case and examined the same in detail. For reference, relevant facts mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the said order are reproduced here below:-
"At the outset, Mr. Maan Akashdeep Singh, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the petitioner - Amjad Khan (in CRM-M-11038- 2026), and files his Power of Attorney in Court today, after getting no objection from the previous counsel, Mr. Jashan Mehta. Same is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.
2.During the course of short hearing, it emerges that land measuring about 12 bighas was agreed to be sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,32,00,000/-. The said transaction was allegedly effected by accused Bharpur Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-17874-2026), who portrayed himself as the real owner of the said land, in favour of its purchaser, namely Manjeet Singh (complainant herein).
3.During the execution of the agreement to sell, accused Amjad Khan (petitioner in CRM-M-11038-2026) allegedly played the role of a dealer and introduced the complainant to co-accused - Bharpur Singh.
It is the claim of the complainant that he has been duped of Rs.1.00 crore, and cheques towards the remaining amount were also handed over to accused/petitioner Amjad Khan. However, the said cheques were not encashed so far, whereas an amount of Rs.1.00 crore was allegedly paid in cash.
4.Apart from this, it has also been informed that petitioner Bharpur Singh is facing seven other cases of similar nature, out of which, in one case, he has been declared a proclaimed offender.
5.Let the antecedents and evidence qua both the accused/petitioners herein be filed by way of status report."
Noticing the fact that co-accused Bharpur Singh is involved in seven other cases of similar nature and has criminal antecedents, his plea for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 18.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-17874-2026 (Annexure P-7).
However, while noticing that the cash amount of Rs.1 crore was received only by accused Bharpur Singh, and further that the two cheques allegedly handed over by the complainant to co-accused Amjad Khan were never encashed, this Court also observed that, except for the aforesaid two monetary transactions, no other amount had exchanged hands between the parties. In view thereof, co-accused Amjad Khan was granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 18.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-11038-2026 (Annexure P-7).
Coming to the allegations qua the present petitioner, namely, Sonu Malik, learned State counsel has not been able to point out any material beyond the role already noticed here above, that he was merely one of the attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell. There is no allegation that any amount pursuant to the alleged deal was handed over by the complainant to the petitioner.
Moreover, petitioner is inside jail for a period of about 05 months and 25 days. The offences alleged are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and, admittedly, charges have not yet been framed in the present case. Thus, conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time.
In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the petitioner and the factors noticed here above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.
Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), shall also stands disposed of.