CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994 105 (1 105 (1 105 (1 105 (1stststst case) case) case) case) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Hari Krishan Kakkar and others State of Punjab Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present: SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory dated 12.08.2026 61(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 Nagar. 2. hand is drawn from the order dated 47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 Hari Krishan Kakkar and others versus Punjab Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: September 10 September 10 September 10 September 10, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: September September September September 11, 11, 11, 11, 2026 2026 2026 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate Ms. Kavya Manuja, Advocate, Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate, Ms. Arshpreet Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Kanwar Harjinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harpreet S. Mulati, Advocate, Mr. Ankush Anand, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Kaushal, Advocate for the ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner .2026, registered for the offences punishable under 61(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Phase For the sake of convenience, relevant factual hand is drawn from the order dated 21.08.2026 passed by the concerned Sessions 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ....Petitioners ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate with Mr. Gursahib Singh Hundal, Advocate, Arshpreet Kaur, Advocate and Kanwar Harjinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankush Anand, Advocate and the complainant. petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for bail to the petitioners, in case bearing FIR No.176 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), , at Police Station Phase-1, Mohali, District SAS For the sake of convenience, relevant factual milieu of the case in .2026 passed by the concerned Sessions 1111 s ....Respondent petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for 176 318(4), 1, Mohali, District SAS of the case in .2026 passed by the concerned Sessions MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 2222 Court (whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioners was declined); the same reads as under: ““““4. The complainant Sanjam Harish son of Satwant Singh Harish got registered the above referred FIR under Section 318(4), 61(2), 351(3) of BNS against the accused Mohinder Singh Channa, Arvinder Singh Channa, Hari Krishan Kakkar, Kanta Rani, Upma Kakkar, Ashok Batra and Pawan Kumar for entering into a criminal conspiracy, cheating the complainant of more than Rs.12.50 Crores by fraudulently inducing him to purchase an industrial plot no.B-32, Phase 3, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali and deliberately concealing pending litigation, making false representations regarding the title and legal status of the property, executing and thereafter, canceling the registered Will and General Power of Attorney, fraudulently asserting competing rights over the property by filing an application before GMADA and committing other cognizable offences. The complainant intended to set up an industry and was looking out for an industrial plot in Mohali. He got his requirement noted with various real estate brokers. The accused Mohinder Singh Channa and his son Ravinder Singh Channa jointly approached the complainant through property dealers Ashok Batra, Mankaran Talwar and Pawan Kumar for the sale of industrial plot no. B-32, Industrial Area, Phase-3, SAS Nagar, Mohali. During the negotiation, accused Mohinder Singh Channa and Ravinder Singh Channa jointly represented and assured the complainant that the aforesaid property was absolutely free from all encumbrances, disputes, pending litigation or third party claim and the title was clear, marketable and capable of being transferred without any legal impediment. Relying upon the assurances and representations, the complainant agreed to purchase the said property. As a token of his bonafide intention and faith, he paid Mohinder Singh Channa and Ravinder Singh Channa, an sum of Rs.90 Lakhs by way of cheque no.000442 dated 26.10.2022. Thereafter, he further paid a sum of Rs.50 Lakh through RTGS on 30.12.2022 towards earnest money. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,40,00,000/- was paid towards the proposed sale consideration. Thereafter, the complainant requested Mohinder Singh to proceed further with the bargain, but he expressed certain reservations and the said conduct raised the suspicion in complainant’s mind. He got the records checked and was astonished to find that the said property was already the subject matter of the pending litigation before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in RSA No.504 of 2019 titled as Baljit Singh and others Vs. Mohinder Singh Channa and others. He immediately confronted the accused Mohinder Singh Channa and his son Ravinder Singh Channa and others as they had deliberately concealed the existence of the aforesaid litigation before obtaining the earnest money from him. Accused Mohinder Singh Channa introduced the complainant to accused Hari Krishan Kakkar by falsely representing that he was an advocate practicing before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and was handling all the legal matter pertaining to the said property. Hari Krishan Kakkar assured the complainant that he was in contact with the opposite party in pending litigation and represented that if the amount demanded by them was paid, the dispute would be amicably resolved and the RSA pending before the Hon’ble High Court would be withdrawn. When the complainant demanded the refund of earnest money on account of fraudulent concealment of pending litigation, accused Mohinder Singh Channa, Ravinder Singh Channa and Hari Krishan Kakkar acting in concert and in furtherance of their common intention persuaded and induced the complainant not to withdraw from the transaction. Having already invested substantial amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- and being repeatedly assured that the pending litigation would be settled and MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 3333 withdrawn, the complainant was left with no practical alternative, but to continue with the transaction and agreed to the proposed settlement with the opposite party. The complainant further came to know that Late Sh. Shiv Das Kapoor was the original allottee of the industrial plot in question since the year 1975. He had executed a Will in favour of Mohinder Singh Channa and a Special Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Ranjit Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh Channa. These facts were also not disclosed to the complainant earlier. It also came to the notice of the complainant that in the year 1987, Smt. Ranjit Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh accused had entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid property with Late Mohinder Singh of Delhi. Despite the said agreement to sell, the ownership of the property ultimately came to be transferred in favour of accused Mohinder Singh Channa in the year 1999. Upon confronting the accused with these facts, the accused Mohinder Singh Channa, Ravinder Singh Channa and Hari Krishan Kakkar represented that there was no legal impediment in the title and assured the complainant that the transaction was valid and lawful. Believing the said assurances extended by the accused persons, the complainant paid the remaining sale consideration through bank channels. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.6,10,00,000/- stood transferred in the account of Mohinder Singh Channa and full and final receipt confirming that the industrial plot has been sold to the complainant, had been issued. He also executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney and Will in favour of complainant's father namely Satwant Singh Harish alongwith supporting documents and affidavits. After securing the entire sale consideration and executing said documents, Mohinder Singh Channa disclosed to the complainant that the actual physical possession of the industrial plot was not with him, but it was with Baljit Singh, Varinderpal Singh and Kanwarjit Singh, the legal heirs of Late Mohinder Singh of Delhi. He stated that unless a separate settlement was arrived at with them by paying additional amount, the possession of the property could neither be obtained nor delivered to the complainant. Having already paid almost the entire sale consideration and being left with no alternative, the complainant was constrained to enter into an agreement with the legal heirs of Late Mohinder Singh of Delhi. The entire documentation relating to the transaction was prepared under the supervision of accused Hari Krishan Kakkar. The execution of the said documents took place in the presence of accused Ravinder Singh Channa, Hari Krishan Kakkar, Sarthak Kakkar and was witnessed by accused Ashok Batra. However, the affidavits and declarations were executed by them to deceive the complainant. The complainant entered into a settlement with Baljit Singh, Varinderpal Singh and Kanwarjit Singh, the LRs of Late Mohinder Singh of Delhi and pursuant to the said settlement and solely to secure the withdrawal of pending litigation, relinquishment of their claim and delivery of vacant and physical possession of the aforesaid industrial plot, the complainant made payments on different dates through demand drafts to the LRs of Late Sh. Mohinder Singh of Delhi. He had paid Rs.5,40,00,000/- to them and they withdrew the RSA No.504 of 2019 pending before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and handed over the vacant and physical possession of the plot to the complainant. Believing that all the disputes had finally come to an end, the complainant took over the possession of the property and secured the premises, installed CCTV cameras. Thereafter, he applied to GMADA for issuance of NO Objection Certificate and transfer of the industrial plot in favour of Satwant Singh Harish, but he was surprised when he received a legal notice dated 12.05.2026 issued by Sarthak Kakkar, son of Accused Hari Krishan Kakkar, acting on behalf of and under the instructions of accused Mohinder Singh Channa informing the complainant that the registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.02.2024 executed in favour of the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 4444 complainant had been unilaterally canceled. When the complainant confronted the accused, it was discovered that another agreement to sell of 2007 was executed in favour of Harcharan Singh Ranauta. The accused again represented that if the complainant intends to obtain the title of the property in his own name, he needs to settle the claims of Harcharan Singh Ranauta and his son Manvinder Ranauta as well. The complainant had invested an enormous amount of his life’s saving and being left with no alternative to protect his investment, he further paid a sum of Rs.1 Crore through cheque no.000261 dated 29.06.2006 to Harcharan Singh Ranauta. The complainant came to know that accused Hari Krishan Kakkar has himself asserted independent rights over the said property before GMADA. On 06.07.2026, accused Hari Krishan Kakkar alongwith his mother Kanta Rani and wife Upma Kakkar submitted an application before GMADA seeking issuance of NOC in their own name in respect of the same plot. The accused persons on 15.06.2026, acting in furtherance of their common intention and criminal conspiracy attempted to take illegal and forcible possession of the industrial plot, despite the complainant being in physical lawful possession. The entire incident was captured and recorded in the CCTV cameras. Another claimant namely Amrinder Singh surfaced and asserted his right in respect of the same property on the basis of agreement to sell allegedly executed in the year 2003 by legal heirs of Late Mohinder Singh of Delhi and litigation regarding the same was pending between them. On the basis of the allegations put forth, the FIR was registered.”””” 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioners are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It has been urged that Mohinder Singh Channa had executed an Agreement to Sell dated 17.10.1995 (Annexure P-1) in favour of the petitioners (herein) qua sale of Industrial Plot No.B-32, Phase-3, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar (Mohali). It has been further urged that before execution of the said agreement to sell, Mohinder Singh Channa had represented to petitioner No.1 that the aforesaid plot was initially in the name of one Shiv Dass Kapoor who died in the year 1989 and had also shown a copy of Will dated 30.05.1974 in favour of Mohinder Singh Channa. It has been argued that after receiving an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- from the petitioners, Mohinder Singh Channa did not/ could not obtain NOC from the GMADA. Learned senior counsel has argued that later petitioner No.1 came to know that Mohinder Singh Channa and his wife were involved in making transactions of the industrial plot in question with other parties as well. Learned MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 5555 senior counsel has urged that thereafter, a new Agreement to Sell was executed in favour of the petitioners on 25.06.2026 by Mohinder Singh Channa by agreeing to get the sale deed registered in favour of the petitioners on or before 15.07.2026. According to learned senior counsel, as Mohinder Singh Channa still did not do the needful, therefore, the petitioners preferred a Civil Suit for Specific Performance on 20.07.2026 for registration of sale deed in question. On 10.08.2026, complainant (herein) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking his impleadment as necessary party to the civil suit in question. 3.1. Learned senior counsel has argued that Sanjam Harish (complainant) filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police (Industrial Security), Mohali and petitioners were asked to attend the office of said officer. On 08.08.2026, petitioner No.1 received a similar notice from the aforesaid police officer asking the petitioners to attend the police office on 10.08.2026. It has been argued that the petitioners, vide an application dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P-7), requested the aforesaid police officer to take up the matter on any other date as the petitioners had to attend the proceedings in the Civil Suit in question. Learned senior counsel has urged that the petitioner also approached this Court by way of CWP-25565- 2026 seeking directions to SP (Industrial Security), Mohali not to call the petitioners without giving an appropriate notice and thereafter, CMs-14681- 14682-2026 were also filed. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.08.2026. Learned senior counsel has iterated that no order was passed by the SP (Industrial Security), Mohali on the application dated 10.08.2026 of the petitioners, whereas in hurried manner, the FIR in question has been registered against the petitioners. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the complainant is not competent to lodge the FIR in question as entire payment was allegedly made to Mohinder Singh Cheema by one Satwant Singh (father of the complainant) from his accounts and not a single penny was paid by the complainant or his father to the petitioners (herein). Learned senior counsel has MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 6666 further argued that as per the FIR in question, certain payments were also made by the father of the complainant into the bank accounts of Mohinder Singh Channa despite having complete knowledge that the property in question was involved in the FIR in question and Civil Suit ibid was pending. Learned senior counsel has argued that the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the commission of the alleged offence, particularly when no amount was received by them in their bank accounts. It has further been contended that the complainant, despite having prior knowledge of the FIR in question and the pendency of civil proceedings in respect of the plot in question, voluntarily acquiesced to the transaction(s) and deposited the amount in the account of Mohinder Singh Channa through the bank accounts of his father. 3.2. Learned senior counsel has asserted that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned senior counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. Furthermore, the petitioners are ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 02.09.2026, which is already on record. The role of the petitioners, as mentioned in the said reply, reads thus: ““““18. ROLE OF PETITONER NO. 1 That accused Hari Krishan Kakkar has a highly active and pivotal role in the entire transaction and cannot be treated as a mere peripheral accused. He was introduced to the complainant by accused Mohinder Singh Channa as an Advocate practising before this Hon'ble Court and as the person handling all legal matters concerning the subject property, thereby gaining the confidence of the complainant. He allegedly assured the complainant that he was in contact with the opposite party in the pending litigation and that, upon payment of the demanded amount, the dispute would be settled and RSA No.504 of 2019 would be withdrawn. Despite being aware of the pending litigation and the complicated title history of the property, he allegedly participated in persuading the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 7777 complainant to continue the transaction and thereafter supervised and facilitated the preparation and execution of the relevant documents, affidavits and declarations. His involvement did not end there; subsequently, his son Sarthak Kakkar issued a legal notice under his instructions regarding unilateral cancellation of the registered General Power of Attorney, while accused Hari Krishan Kakkar himself, along with his mother and wife, subsequently asserted an independent claim over the very same property before GMADA and sought issuance of NOC in their own favour. Thus, the material collected discloses his direct, active and continuing role in the alleged conspiracy, inducement, concealment and subsequent assertion of competing rights, making his custodial interrogation and further investigation necessary; consequently, he does not deserve the discretionary concession of regular bail. ROLE OF PETITONER NO.2 ROLE OF PETITONER NO.2 ROLE OF PETITONER NO.2 ROLE OF PETITONER NO.2 That accused Kanta Rani also has a specific and material role in the subsequent acts forming part of the alleged conspiracy, as she, along with accused Hari Krishan Kakkar and Upma Kakkar, submitted an application dated 06.07.2026 before GMADA seeking issuance of NOC in their own favour in respect of the very same industrial plot, despite the complainant having already paid substantial amounts towards the property and being in lawful physical possession thereof. Her subsequent assertion of an independent right over the property, in association with the other accused persons, assumes significance in the backdrop of the earlier representations made to the complainant regarding the title and lawful transferability of the property and the existence of multiple competing claims. Her conduct, therefore, requires investigation to ascertain her knowledge, participation and role in the alleged conspiracy and the circumstances in which she asserted rights over the property, particularly when the complainant's possession and substantial investment were already known to the accused persons. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the subsequent conduct of accused Kanta Rani and the requirement of a fair and effective investigation, she does not deserve the discretionary concession of bail. ROLE OF PETITONER NO. 3 ROLE OF PETITONER NO. 3 ROLE OF PETITONER NO. 3 ROLE OF PETITONER NO. 3 That accused Upma Kakkar has a specific and direct role in the subsequent acts concerning the subject property, inasmuch as on 06.07.2026 she, along with accused Hari Krishan Kakkar and Kanta Rani, herself submitted an application before GMADA seeking issuance of NOC in their own favour in respect of Industrial Plot No. B-32, Phase-III, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali, despite the complainant having already paid substantial sale consideration and having obtained physical possession of the said property. Her own act of approaching GMADA and asserting rights over the very property which had already been represented and sold to the complainant is a specific circumstance requiring investigation into her knowledge, authority, source of claimed title and connection with the other accused persons. Her participation is therefore not merely on account of her relationship with co- accused Hari Krishan Kakkar, but is founded upon her own conscious act of asserting a competing right before the competent authority, which assumes significance in the backdrop of the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 8888 alleged fraudulent transaction and multiple competing claims over the property.”””” 4.1. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioners is serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, the case in hand involves huge financial transactions. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is imperative for fair and effective investigation. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioners may abscond or tamper with the evidence, in case they are enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for. 4.2. Learned senior counsel for the complainant has filed reply dated 07.09.2026, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned senior counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioners. It has been argued that the accused persons, acting in concert and pursuant to their common intention, dishonestly induced the complainant to part with substantial sums by making false representations and assurances concerning the sale and transfer of the property in question. It has been stated as under in Para-7 of the aforesaid reply: ““““7. That Petitioner No. 1, accused Hari Krishan Kakkar, is alleged to have played a central and continuing role in the entire transaction and conspiracy. He was introduced to the Answering Respondent by co- accused Mohinder Singh Channa, Ravinder Singh Channa, Ashok Batra and Pawan Kumar as an advocate handling the legal affairs relating to the subject property, whereupon he represented that he was in contact with the legal heirs contesting RSA No. 504 of 2019 and could procure an amicable settlement, withdrawal of the pending litigation and conferment of a clear and marketable title upon the Answering Respondent. Acting upon his representations and assurances, the Answering Respondent was induced to continue with the transaction despite the concealed litigation, execute the subsequent arrangement with Mohinder Singh Channa and pay ₹5,40,00,000/- to the legal heirs towards settlement of their claims. Thereafter, Hari Krishan Kakkar allegedly participated in the disclosure and proposed settlement of the previously concealed claim of Harcharan Singh Ranauta, arranged the meeting at which Mohinder Singh Channa was also present and thereby induced the Answering Respondent to pay a MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 9999 further sum of ₹1,00,00,000/-. He, along with his son Sarthak Kakkar and the other accused, is further alleged to have induced the Answering Respondent to withdraw the NOC application filed before GMADA in the name of his father by assuring that the property would instead be transferred directly in the Answering Respondent's name. Contrary to those assurances, Hari Krishan Kakkar subsequently instituted a civil suit dated 20.07.2026 against Mohinder Singh Channa on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell dated 17.10.1995 and a purported rectification agreement dated 25.06.2026, in which Mohinder Singh Channa, upon his first appearance, filed a written statement admitting the claim and expressing willingness to execute the sale deed in favour of Hari Krishan Kakkar; an NOC application was also stated to have been submitted to GMADA in the names of Hari Krishan Kakkar, Kanta Rani and Upma Kakkar. The Answering Respondent accordingly alleges that these coordinated acts were undertaken to create competing rights in the property, defeat his pre-existing contractual and possessory rights, cause him substantial wrongful loss and secure a corresponding wrongful gain for Hari Krishan Kakkar and the other accused.”””” 4.3. It is, therefore, submitted that, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. 6. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. From a perusal of the prosecution case, material placed on record as well as the order passed by the concerned Sessions Judge, whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioners was declined, it prima facie emerges that the property in dispute was under litigation, still the same was agreed to be sold to the complainant. It has been noted by the Court below that the accused persons failed to disclose the pending litigation or the various Agreements to Sell, executed in respect thereof, to the complainant. It was further noted that the sale consideration paid by the complainant had predominantly been transferred to the accounts of Mohinder Singh Channa, his son Ravinder Singh and the legal representatives of late Mohinder Singh, and that the role of the remaining co- accused, however, could not be altogether ruled out. The Court below further noted that the execution of a General Power of Attorney and a registered Will by MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 10 10 10 10 Mohinder Singh Channa in favour of the complainant’s father, namely, Satwant Singh, after receipt of the entire sale consideration, followed by their unilateral revocation without any valid reason, prima facie indicated dishonest intention. It was further noted that the property dealers, namely Pawan Kumar and Ashok Batra, could not be absolved of their duty to verify the title and encumbrances pertaining to the property before recommending the same to the prospective purchaser. It has been further noticed that Kanta Rani (petitioner No.2) and Upma Kakkar (petitioner No.3), family members of Hari Krishan Kakkar (petitioner No.1), had applied to GMADA for issuance of NOC after the industrial plot in question had been agreed to be sold to the complainant and the entire sale consideration already stood paid through banking channels. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, it is prima facie borne out that the accused persons appear to have shared a common intention and entered into a criminal conspiracy to deceive the complainant by making successive false representations, thereby inducing him to part with approximately Rs.12.50 crore, and thereafter even attempting to forcibly take possession of the industrial plot in question from him. 6.1. Furthermore, the investigating agency has sought the custodial interrogation of the petitioners for effective recovery, verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the present FIR. 7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 11 11 11 11 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 petitioners. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ““““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.”””” 8. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, role attributed to the petitioners and magnitude & nature of the offence, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioners. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for an effective investigation, recover ill-gotten money& to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. 9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47994 47994 47994 47994----2026 2026 2026 2026 12 12 12 12 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 10 September 10 September 10 September 10, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment