CRM-M-68432- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Manoj Arora State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. R.D.Sharma, MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 290 dated 25.10.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61 of BNSS, 2023 at Police Station Central, Faridabad, District Faridabad. 2. The allegations in the FIR and the materia investigation reveal that the petitioner, while acting as a property dealer, gained the confidence of the complainant and her family and actively facilitated a fraudulent transaction relating to sale of agricultural land situated at Vill Tehsil Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., which was neither owned by the co-accused nor available for sale on the relevant date. It is alleged that on the inducement and representations made by the petitioner, the complainant parted with a total amount of through cheques. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged offences. It is contended that the petitioner is neither the executant of any alleged forged document nor the owner of the land in question. It is further -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS Haryana and Others HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. R.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 290 dated 25.10.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61 of BNSS, 2023 at Police Station Central, Faridabad, District Faridabad. The allegations in the FIR and the materia investigation reveal that the petitioner, while acting as a property dealer, gained the confidence of the complainant and her family and actively facilitated a fraudulent transaction relating to sale of agricultural land situated at Vill Tehsil Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., which was neither owned by the accused nor available for sale on the relevant date. It is alleged that on the inducement and representations made by the petitioner, the complainant parted ith a total amount of ₹1,10,32,000/-, part of which was received in cash and part through cheques. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no concern whatsoever with the eged offences. It is contended that the petitioner is neither the executant of any alleged forged document nor the owner of the land in question. It is further -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-68432-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.01.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 290 dated 25.10.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61 of BNSS, 2023 at Police Station Central, Faridabad, District Faridabad. The allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation reveal that the petitioner, while acting as a property dealer, gained the confidence of the complainant and her family and actively facilitated a fraudulent transaction relating to sale of agricultural land situated at Village Udharavali, Tehsil Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., which was neither owned by the accused nor available for sale on the relevant date. It is alleged that on the inducement and representations made by the petitioner, the complainant parted , part of which was received in cash and part Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no concern whatsoever with the eged offences. It is contended that the petitioner is neither the executant of any alleged forged document nor the owner of the land in question. It is further The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 290 dated 25.10.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61 of BNSS, 2023 l collected during investigation reveal that the petitioner, while acting as a property dealer, gained the confidence of the complainant and her family and actively facilitated a fraudulent age Udharavali, Tehsil Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., which was neither owned by the accused nor available for sale on the relevant date. It is alleged that on the inducement and representations made by the petitioner, the complainant parted , part of which was received in cash and part Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no concern whatsoever with the eged offences. It is contended that the petitioner is neither the executant of any alleged forged document nor the owner of the land in question. It is further TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.15 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68432- submitted that no amount has been received by the petitioner from the complainant and that the story put forth in the FIR is false and fabricated. Learned counsel submits that the alleged payment of documentary proof has been produced to establish payment of such a huge amount in cash. It is argued that th has deep roots in society, is a permanent resident of Haryana, has no criminal antecedents, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions imposed by this Court. On anticipatory bail has been made. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on the basis of the status report filed, opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner is not a mere intermediary but one of the princ transaction. It is submitted that during investigation, the petitioner has admitted receipt of ₹40,00,000/ complainant by visiting her house in hi investigation has revealed that the land in question had already been sold much prior to the alleged transaction and was not available for sale on the relevant date. It is further submitted that forged and fabricated do deed, were used to induce the complainant to part with money. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be indispensable for recovery of forged documents, stamp papers, cash amount, original cheques, for tracing of crime, identifying the chain of conspiracy and for sending the recovered documents for forensic examination. It is also submitted that some co absconding and the petitioner possesses crucial information regarding their roles and whereabouts. Learned State counsel further submits that an earlier anticipatory -2025 (O&M) submitted that no amount has been received by the petitioner from the complainant tory put forth in the FIR is false and fabricated. Learned counsel submits that the alleged payment of ₹1,10,32,000/ documentary proof has been produced to establish payment of such a huge amount in cash. It is argued that the petitioner has joined the investigation whenever called, has deep roots in society, is a permanent resident of Haryana, has no criminal antecedents, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions imposed by this Court. On these premises, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been made. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on the basis of the status report filed, opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner is not a mere intermediary but one of the principal facilitators and beneficiaries of the fraudulent transaction. It is submitted that during investigation, the petitioner has admitted ₹40,00,000/- in cash, which was collected from the residence of the complainant by visiting her house in his vehicle along with co investigation has revealed that the land in question had already been sold much prior to the alleged transaction and was not available for sale on the relevant date. It is further submitted that forged and fabricated do deed, were used to induce the complainant to part with money. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be indispensable for recovery of forged documents, stamp papers, cash amount, original cheques, for tracing of crime, identifying the chain of conspiracy and for sending the recovered documents for forensic examination. It is also submitted that some co absconding and the petitioner possesses crucial information regarding their roles d whereabouts. Learned State counsel further submits that an earlier anticipatory -2- submitted that no amount has been received by the petitioner from the complainant tory put forth in the FIR is false and fabricated. Learned counsel ₹1,10,32,000/- is wholly unbelievable, as no documentary proof has been produced to establish payment of such a huge amount e petitioner has joined the investigation whenever called, has deep roots in society, is a permanent resident of Haryana, has no criminal antecedents, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all these premises, prayer for grant of On the other hand, learned State counsel, on the basis of the status report filed, opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner is not a mere ipal facilitators and beneficiaries of the fraudulent transaction. It is submitted that during investigation, the petitioner has admitted in cash, which was collected from the residence of the s vehicle along with co-accused. The investigation has revealed that the land in question had already been sold much prior to the alleged transaction and was not available for sale on the relevant date. It is further submitted that forged and fabricated documents, including a false sale deed, were used to induce the complainant to part with money. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be indispensable for recovery of forged documents, stamp papers, cash amount, original cheques, for tracing the proceeds of crime, identifying the chain of conspiracy and for sending the recovered documents for forensic examination. It is also submitted that some co-accused are absconding and the petitioner possesses crucial information regarding their roles d whereabouts. Learned State counsel further submits that an earlier anticipatory submitted that no amount has been received by the petitioner from the complainant tory put forth in the FIR is false and fabricated. Learned counsel is wholly unbelievable, as no documentary proof has been produced to establish payment of such a huge amount e petitioner has joined the investigation whenever called, has deep roots in society, is a permanent resident of Haryana, has no criminal antecedents, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all these premises, prayer for grant of On the other hand, learned State counsel, on the basis of the status report filed, opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner is not a mere ipal facilitators and beneficiaries of the fraudulent transaction. It is submitted that during investigation, the petitioner has admitted in cash, which was collected from the residence of the accused. The investigation has revealed that the land in question had already been sold much prior to the alleged transaction and was not available for sale on the relevant date. cuments, including a false sale deed, were used to induce the complainant to part with money. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is stated to be indispensable for recovery of forged the proceeds of crime, identifying the chain of conspiracy and for sending the recovered accused are absconding and the petitioner possesses crucial information regarding their roles d whereabouts. Learned State counsel further submits that an earlier anticipatory TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.15 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68432- bail application filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Sessions Court and no change in circumstances has been shown. 4. I have heard learned counsel for record. 5. A prima facie perusal of the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the status report reflects that the petitioner played an active role in inducing the complainant to enter into the alleged t land which was neither owned by the co material on record indicates receipt of part consideration by the petitioner, facilitation of documentation and active participation in the alleged fr transaction. The investigation is still at a crucial stage and several recoveries, including forged documents and proceeds of crime, are yet to be effected. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as sought by the investigating agency, cannot be said to be unwarranted at this stage. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the amount involved, the prima facie material indicating active involvement of the petitioner, the necessity of custodial interrogation anticipatory bail application has already been dismissed, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, is/a January 14, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) bail application filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Sessions Court and no change in circumstances has been shown. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the A prima facie perusal of the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the status report reflects that the petitioner played an active role in inducing the complainant to enter into the alleged t land which was neither owned by the co-accused nor available for sale. The material on record indicates receipt of part consideration by the petitioner, facilitation of documentation and active participation in the alleged fr transaction. The investigation is still at a crucial stage and several recoveries, including forged documents and proceeds of crime, are yet to be effected. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as sought by the investigating agency, ot be said to be unwarranted at this stage. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the amount involved, the prima facie material indicating active involvement of the petitioner, the necessity of custodial interrogation anticipatory bail application has already been dismissed, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. 6 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- bail application filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Sessions Court and no change in circumstances has been shown. the parties and have gone through the A prima facie perusal of the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the status report reflects that the petitioner played an active role in inducing the complainant to enter into the alleged transaction relating to sale of accused nor available for sale. The material on record indicates receipt of part consideration by the petitioner, facilitation of documentation and active participation in the alleged fraudulent transaction. The investigation is still at a crucial stage and several recoveries, including forged documents and proceeds of crime, are yet to be effected. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as sought by the investigating agency, Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the amount involved, the prima facie material indicating active involvement of the petitioner, the necessity of custodial interrogation and the fact that an earlier anticipatory bail application has already been dismissed, this Court does not find it Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. re disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No bail application filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Sessions the parties and have gone through the A prima facie perusal of the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the status report reflects that the petitioner played an active role ransaction relating to sale of accused nor available for sale. The material on record indicates receipt of part consideration by the petitioner, audulent transaction. The investigation is still at a crucial stage and several recoveries, including forged documents and proceeds of crime, are yet to be effected. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner, as sought by the investigating agency, Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the amount involved, the prima facie material indicating active involvement of and the fact that an earlier anticipatory bail application has already been dismissed, this Court does not find it TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.15 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document