CRM-M-4723- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND Harish Sharma @ Happy State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. petitioner under Section seeking grant of registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 Station Model Town, District Ludhiana. CRM-M-10209 2. present petition are that complaint lodged by complainant Deepak Kathuria, who is owner of a restaurant in Ludhiana, on the allegations that accused persons namely Parminder Singh Sachdeva, who are property dealers, as well as petitioner Harjinder Singh Kang -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harish Sharma @ Happy Versus Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. Ramneek Kaur Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Batra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for the complainant. MANISHA BATRA, J. The instant one is the second petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 3 dated 08.01.2024, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 Station Model Town, District Ludhiana. 10209-2024, was dismissed as withdrawn on Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant Deepak Kathuria, who is owner of a restaurant in Ludhiana, on the allegations that accused persons namely Tarun Taneja, Harwinder Singh Sachd Parminder Singh Sachdeva, who are property dealers, as well as petitioner Harjinder Singh Kang, his uncle and himself entered into an agreement to -1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4723-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 12.03.2025 Pronounced on : 24.03.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA , Advocate Ms. Swati Batra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 bail in case bearing FIR No. 3 dated 08.01.2024, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Model Town, District Ludhiana. The first petition, bearing d as withdrawn on 31.08.2024. s of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant Deepak Kathuria, who is owner of a restaurant in Ludhiana, on the allegations that on being introduced by the ja, Harwinder Singh Sachdeva and Parminder Singh Sachdeva, who are property dealers, as well as petitioner his uncle and himself entered into an agreement to 1- 2025 (O&M) .03.2025 Pronounced on : 24.03.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent has been filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 bail in case bearing FIR No. 3 dated 08.01.2024, B of IPC at Police The first petition, bearing s of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant Deepak Kathuria, who is owner of a by the eva and Parminder Singh Sachdeva, who are property dealers, as well as petitioner his uncle and himself entered into an agreement to MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.25 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4723- purchase a property with accused Mandeep Singh for a sum of Rs. 5.5 crores and paid an amount of Rs. presence of accused Tarun Taneja, Harwinder Singh Sachdeva, Parminder Singh Sachdeva, Upjit Singh and Naresh Kumar. office of Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority where on their request, two computer operators, one of Tiwari, checked the documents and represented that the property sought to be purchased by the complainant was in fact owned by accused Mandeep Singh. It was further al that the property so purchased by him and his uncle had in fact never been allotted and sold by GLADA to any other person and he also came to know that the accused persons, in connivance with and other documents qua ownership of the said property in the name of Mandeep Singh and had sold the same to them, thereby causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 5.5 crores. Naresh Kumar, was nominated by the complainant in his supplementary statement with the allegations that he had also come with his brother Naresh Kumar used to collect the money from him. investigation proceedings we 03.02.2024. 3. has been falsely implicated in this case. was a signatory be forged by the co of the aforesaid property. -2025 (O&M) property with accused Mandeep Singh for a sum of Rs. 5.5 crores and paid an amount of Rs. 1.5 crore as earnest money to Mandeep Singh in the presence of accused Tarun Taneja, Harwinder Singh Sachdeva, Parminder Singh Sachdeva, Upjit Singh and Naresh Kumar. office of Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority where on their request, two computer operators, one of Tiwari, checked the documents and represented that the property sought to be purchased by the complainant was in fact owned by accused Mandeep Singh. It was further alleged by the complainant that in the year 2023, he came to know that the property so purchased by him and his uncle had in fact never been allotted and sold by GLADA to any other person and he also came to know that the accused persons, in connivance with each other, had prepared fake sale deed and other documents qua ownership of the said property in the name of Mandeep Singh and had sold the same to them, thereby causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 5.5 crores. The petitioner, who is real brother of c Naresh Kumar, was nominated by the complainant in his supplementary statement with the allegations that he had also come with his brother Naresh Kumar used to collect the money from him. investigation proceedings were initiated. 03.02.2024. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He a signatory/attesting witness to any of the documents, which are alleged to be forged by the co-accused and which were executed during transaction of sale of the aforesaid property. Even as per allegations in the complaint, the entire -2 property with accused Mandeep Singh for a sum of Rs. 5.5 crores 1.5 crore as earnest money to Mandeep Singh in the presence of accused Tarun Taneja, Harwinder Singh Sachdeva, Parminder Singh Sachdeva, Upjit Singh and Naresh Kumar. Even they were taken to office of Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (for short ‘GLADA’), where on their request, two computer operators, one of whom was Amit Kumar Tiwari, checked the documents and represented that the property sought to be purchased by the complainant was in fact owned by accused Mandeep Singh. It leged by the complainant that in the year 2023, he came to know that the property so purchased by him and his uncle had in fact never been allotted and sold by GLADA to any other person and he also came to know that each other, had prepared fake sale deed and other documents qua ownership of the said property in the name of Mandeep Singh and had sold the same to them, thereby causing wrongful loss The petitioner, who is real brother of co-accused Naresh Kumar, was nominated by the complainant in his supplementary statement with the allegations that he had also come with his brother Naresh Kumar used to collect the money from him. After registration of the FIR, re initiated. The petitioner was arrested on It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner He was neither named in the FIR nor attesting witness to any of the documents, which are alleged to accused and which were executed during transaction of sale Even as per allegations in the complaint, the entire 2- property with accused Mandeep Singh for a sum of Rs. 5.5 crores 1.5 crore as earnest money to Mandeep Singh in the presence of accused Tarun Taneja, Harwinder Singh Sachdeva, Parminder Even they were taken to the ort ‘GLADA’), was Amit Kumar Tiwari, checked the documents and represented that the property sought to be purchased by the complainant was in fact owned by accused Mandeep Singh. It leged by the complainant that in the year 2023, he came to know that the property so purchased by him and his uncle had in fact never been allotted and sold by GLADA to any other person and he also came to know that each other, had prepared fake sale deed and other documents qua ownership of the said property in the name of Mandeep Singh and had sold the same to them, thereby causing wrongful loss accused Naresh Kumar, was nominated by the complainant in his supplementary statement with the allegations that he had also come with his brother Naresh After registration of the FIR, The petitioner was arrested on It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner named in the FIR nor attesting witness to any of the documents, which are alleged to accused and which were executed during transaction of sale Even as per allegations in the complaint, the entire MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.25 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4723- sale consideration amount was giv through cheques to other accused but not to the present petitioner. There was no inducement on the part of the petitioner. he was with the co the money from the complainant. sweeping in nature. transaction. innocent. The petitioner is in custody since time. Similarly situated co granted concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 29.01.2025 passed in CRM deserves the same benefit as no in custody anymore. allowed. 4. therein and learned counsel for the complainant, has conspiracy with co forged documents regarding allotment of the said property had been prepared and on the basis of those fake documents, the complainant was induced to purchase the said property for a huge amount of money. actively invo in nature. Trial is going on at a proper pace. is liable to be dismissed. -2025 (O&M) sale consideration amount was given to co-accused Harwinder Singh in cash or through cheques to other accused but not to the present petitioner. There was no inducement on the part of the petitioner. The only allegation against him is that he was with the co-accused Naresh Kumar, when the the money from the complainant. The allegations against him are general and sweeping in nature. He has not received any amount of money in the said transaction. The main accused, who are actual culprits, have been declared ent. The petitioner is in custody since Similarly situated co-accused Manjeet Singh @ Jassa has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 29.01.2025 CRM-M-35502-2024. On the grounds of parity, the petitioner too deserves the same benefit as no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be Status report has been filed by the respondent therein and learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that conspiracy with co-accused and in pursuance of the said c forged documents regarding allotment of the said property had been prepared and on the basis of those fake documents, the complainant was induced to purchase the said property for a huge amount of money. actively involved in the subject crime. The allegations against him are serious in nature. Trial is going on at a proper pace. liable to be dismissed. -3 accused Harwinder Singh in cash or through cheques to other accused but not to the present petitioner. There was no The only allegation against him is that accused Naresh Kumar, when the latter had come to collect The allegations against him are general and has not received any amount of money in the said The main accused, who are actual culprits, have been declared ent. The petitioner is in custody since 03.02.2024. Trial is likely to take Manjeet Singh @ Jassa has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 29.01.2025 On the grounds of parity, the petitioner too useful purpose would be served by keeping him It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be been filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by learned argued that the petitioner had hatched a accused and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, fake and forged documents regarding allotment of the said property had been prepared and on the basis of those fake documents, the complainant was induced to purchase the said property for a huge amount of money. The petitioner was lved in the subject crime. The allegations against him are serious in nature. Trial is going on at a proper pace. Hence, it is urged that the petition 3- accused Harwinder Singh in cash or through cheques to other accused but not to the present petitioner. There was no The only allegation against him is that latter had come to collect The allegations against him are general and has not received any amount of money in the said The main accused, who are actual culprits, have been declared Trial is likely to take Manjeet Singh @ Jassa has already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 29.01.2025 On the grounds of parity, the petitioner too useful purpose would be served by keeping him It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be State. It is submitted Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by learned hatched a onspiracy, fake and forged documents regarding allotment of the said property had been prepared and on the basis of those fake documents, the complainant was induced to The petitioner was lved in the subject crime. The allegations against him are serious Hence, it is urged that the petition MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.25 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4723- 5. and have also gone through the record carefully. 6. statement suffered by the complainant, wherein he had disclosed that when co accused Naresh Kumar had come to collect the money from him, the petit was accompanying him. Except this, there is no other allegation coming forth against the petitioner. on his part to the victims to part with any amount of money or represented to the vi said property. Investigation has since been completed and petitioner is in custody since time. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. 7. ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 24.03.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length ave also gone through the record carefully. The name of the petitioner had surfaced in the supplementary statement suffered by the complainant, wherein he had disclosed that when co accused Naresh Kumar had come to collect the money from him, the petit was accompanying him. Except this, there is no other allegation coming forth against the petitioner. There is no such allegation that there was any inducement part to the victims to part with any amount of money or represented to the victims that accused Mandeep Singh was the owner of the said property. Even no recovery is shown to have been effected from him. Investigation has since been completed and petitioner is in custody since 03.02.2024. Conclusion of Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody anymore. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and t ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length ave also gone through the record carefully. The name of the petitioner had surfaced in the supplementary statement suffered by the complainant, wherein he had disclosed that when co accused Naresh Kumar had come to collect the money from him, the petitioner was accompanying him. Except this, there is no other allegation coming forth allegation that there was any inducement part to the victims to part with any amount of money or he ctims that accused Mandeep Singh was the owner of the Even no recovery is shown to have been effected from him. Investigation has since been completed and challan has been filed. The . Conclusion of trial is likely to take Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 4- I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length The name of the petitioner had surfaced in the supplementary statement suffered by the complainant, wherein he had disclosed that when co- ioner was accompanying him. Except this, there is no other allegation coming forth allegation that there was any inducement had ctims that accused Mandeep Singh was the owner of the Even no recovery is shown to have been effected from him. has been filed. The trial is likely to take Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the he petitioner is /surety It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.25 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document