( 2025:HHC:17167 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1108 of 2025 Reserved on 28.05.2025. Date of Decision: 02.06.2025 Sanjeev Kumar …Applicant Versus State of H.P. …..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant-Sanjeev Kumar, apprehending his arrest, in case, FIR No.6/2024, dated 18.01.2024, registered under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), with Police Station Tahliwal, District Una, H.P., has filed the present application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNSS). 2. By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought, by the applicant, to direct the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:17167 ) 2 IO/Police of Police Station, Tahilwal, District Una, to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above mentioned FIR. 3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been named as accused, in the present case, at the instance of the complainant, as such, he is apprehending his arrest, in this case. 4. It is the case of the applicant that he has nothing to do with the offences, as mentioned in the application, as, he had entered into an Agreement dated 03.07.2023, with the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.38,50,000/- and an advance payment of Rs.22,00,000/- was made at the time of Agreement to Sell and remaining payment was to be made, at the time of execution of the sale deed. 5. It has been averred in the application that the sale deed could not be executed within the stipulated period and as such, period was extended up to 20.09.2023. 6. Thereafter, according to the applicant, complainant had instituted a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sale, which is pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Una. ( 2025:HHC:17167 ) 3 7. On the basis of pendency of the above civil litigation, the applicant has prayed that the directions may be issued to the IO/Police of Police Station, Tahliwal, District Una, to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest. 8. According to the applicant, he had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P. However, his application was dismissed, for want of prosecution, vide order dated 07.05.2025. 8.1. On the basis of the above facts, vide order dated 14.05.2025, State was directed to file the status report. Consequently, State has filed the status report on 14.05.2025, disclosing therein, that on 18.01.2024, complainant-Sanjeev Kumar moved a complaint before the police, mentioning therein, that he had entered into an Agreement to Sell with Sanjeev Kumar (applicant) and the bargain was got struck, through property dealer Sohan Singh, to whom, the commission of Rs.50,000/-, was given by the complainant. The complainant had paid the earnest money of Rs.22,00,000/- and the time to execute the sale deed was fixed, within three months. However, on expiry of three months, when, the applicant was requested to execute the sale deed, he evaded ( 2025:HHC:17167 ) 4 the matter on the one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant had gone to the house of Sanjeev Kumar, from where, he came to know about the fact that he had gone to Dubai and he was dropped at Airport by Sohan Singh. When enquired from Sohan Singh, he could not give a satisfactory reply. Later on, complainant also came to know about the fact that the agreement, qua the land in question, was already done with someone. As such, he has prayed that action be taken against them, 8.2. Consequently, the police registered the case, under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B of IPC. Thereafter, investigation was conducted by ASI Kamlesh Kumar. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.PC. Thereafter, the correspondence was made with the concerned bankers to obtain the information, regarding cheques issued by the complainant. 8.3. During investigation, the information, regarding the passport of the applicant, was obtained from the Passport Office and thereafter, Look Out Circular was issued. When, the complainant was directed to produce the original agreement, executed between the parties, he submitted to the police that the same has been annexed with the civil suit, which has been ( 2025:HHC:17167 ) 5 instituted in the Court at Una. Thereafter, he has obtained the attested photocopies of the same, from the Court. On 11.01.2025, co-accused-Sohan Singh was associated and notice, under Section 41A of Cr.PC, was served upon him. 8.4. It is the further case of the police that on 16.03.2025, applicant-Sanjeev Kumar joined the investigation, on the basis of the interim protection, granted to him, by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una. In the enquiry, applicant has disclosed that an agreement was executed, between him and the complainant, regarding the sale of the land for a sum of Rs.38,50,000/- and Sanjeev Kumar (applicant) had paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- through cheque and Rs.7,00,000/- has been mentioned to be given as cash, whereas, the same is stated to be not received by him. Apart from this, he has also received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance. Since, other co-sharers were not ready to execute the sale deed, on the rate, agreed upon, between the parties, as such, he could not get the sale deed executed, in his favour. The applicant had allegedly spent a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, for visiting abroad and when, the amount was claimed back by the complainant,then, applicant has assured him to pay the same in installments. ( 2025:HHC:17167 ) 6 8.5. It is the further case of the police that thereafter, on 05.01.2024, the applicant has transferred a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- to complainant-Sanjeev Kumar, through online. Rest of the amount he has assured to pay, after 20.01.2024. Later on, the complainant came to know about the fact that Sanjeev Kumar (applicant) instituted a case, against him. As such, the applicant has not paid any further payment. 8.6. It is the further case of the police that on 17.04.2025, statement of Ashok Kumar was also recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.PC. According to the stand of the police, the amount of Rs.19,60,000/- is yet to be recovered, in this case. 9. It is the further case of the police that as per the police record, FIR No.71 of 2025, dated 01.05.2025, under Sections 318(4) & 35 of BNS, has also been registered against the applicant, with Police Station, Haroli. 10. On the basis of the above stand, interim protection was given to the applicant and the matter was adjourned for 21.05.2025. On that day, supplementary status report was filed, disclosing therein, that on 17.05.2025, the applicant appeared before the police, along with the order, passed by this ( 2025:HHC:17167 ) 7 Court. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned for 28.05.2025. 11. In the status report, filed on 28.05.2025, a stand has been taken that the applicant has joined the investigation. The applicant has repaid a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- to complainant- Sanjeev Kumar and rest of the amount, he has assured to pay, in future. 12. Lastly, it has been mentioned in the status report that nothing is to be recovered from the applicant and the investigation in the present case, is complete and charge-sheet has been prepared, which will be filed in the Court. 13. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 14. Admittedly, the dispute between the parties, in this case is based upon the Agreement to Sell, regarding which, the complainant has already filed the suit for specific performance, in the competent Court of law. 15. The role, allegedly played by the applicant, will be proved, during the trial and when, the civil suit is pending adjudication, between the parties, then, the bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law. ( 2025:HHC:17167 ) 8 16. Moreover, the applicant is permanent resident of District Una, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, interim order is made absolute, he may not be available for the trial. 17. Even otherwise, it would be proved that there was any intention of the applicant to cheat the complainant. 18. Consequently, interim order, dated 14.05.2025, is made absolute and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.06/2024, dated 18.01.2024, registered under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B of IPC, with Police Station Tahliwal, District Una, H.P., subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 19. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:- a) The applicant shall appear before the IO, as and when, directed by the IO to do so and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing the appropriate application; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, ( 2025:HHC:17167 ) 9 acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. 20. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application. 21. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when charge-sheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 22. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant. (Virender Singh) Judge June 02, 2025 (subhash)