CRM-M-11777 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Simranjeet Kaur State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. 11.01.2024 under Sections 420, 506 and 120 Station Beas, District Amritsar (Rural), has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready to settle dispute with respondent sent to Mediation and C the petitioner non-issuance of No Objection Certificate by the Punjab Urban Development Authority was taken by petitioner dated 11.09.2024, the requisite No Objection Certificate was issued on 29.08.2024. Even thereafter, the rival parties did not settle the dispute between them, which related to non dated 16.05.2 Mandeep Kumar, husband of 11777-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Simranjeet Kaur Versus Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate, Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Tanheer Singh Bariana, Advocate, **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) Petitioner, apprehending her 11.01.2024 under Sections 420, 506 and 120 Station Beas, District Amritsar (Rural), has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. This Court, while taking cognizance of the matter on 13.03.2024, on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready to settle dispute with respondent – complainant, consented the matter to be sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, and the petitioner. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing, i.e. 16.04.2024, plea of issuance of No Objection Certificate by the Punjab Urban Development Authority was taken by petitioner – accused. Later dated 11.09.2024, the requisite No Objection Certificate was issued on 29.08.2024. Even thereafter, the rival parties did not settle the dispute between them, which related to non-execution of sale deed, pursuant to agreement dated 16.05.2022, whereby a deal was struck Mandeep Kumar, husband of petitioner -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11777-2024 Date of decision : 27.08.2025 …….Petitioner ….Respondent SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE , Advocate, for the petitioner. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Tanheer Singh Bariana, Advocate, for the complainant. ( Oral ) apprehending her arrest in FIR No. 11 dated 11.01.2024 under Sections 420, 506 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar (Rural), has filed this petition under Section is Court, while taking cognizance of the matter on 13.03.2024, on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready complainant, consented the matter to be entre of this Court, and stayed arrest of . Thereafter, on the next date of hearing, i.e. 16.04.2024, plea of issuance of No Objection Certificate by the Punjab Urban Development accused. Later on, as per interim order dated 11.09.2024, the requisite No Objection Certificate was issued on 29.08.2024. Even thereafter, the rival parties did not settle the dispute between execution of sale deed, pursuant to agreement 022, whereby a deal was struck to sell a house by co-accused petitioner – accused, in favour of the 2024 27.08.2025 …….Petitioner ….Respondent arrest in FIR No. 11 dated B IPC, registered at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar (Rural), has filed this petition under Section is Court, while taking cognizance of the matter on 13.03.2024, on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready complainant, consented the matter to be arrest of . Thereafter, on the next date of hearing, i.e. 16.04.2024, plea of issuance of No Objection Certificate by the Punjab Urban Development er interim order dated 11.09.2024, the requisite No Objection Certificate was issued on 29.08.2024. Even thereafter, the rival parties did not settle the dispute between execution of sale deed, pursuant to agreement accused accused, in favour of the NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.01 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRM-M-11777 complainant, for sale consideration of Rs. 23,20,000/ Rs. 3,20,000/ Kumar. 2.1 staying her arrest, without complying with the conditions, subject to which her arrest was stayed. 3. anticipatory bail has been kept pending for about one and half years and is being getting adjourned by learned counsel for the petitioner pretext or the other. 3.1 not to travel beyond the jurisdictional purview of bail jurisdiction to enter into civil disputes between the parties [Please see : U.P. and others Apex Court in paragraph 15 of its judgment dated 25.10.2024 rendered in Ramratan @ Ramswaroop @ another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 4403 of 2024]. 3.2 that petitioner therefore, is not entitled any order under discretionary bail jurisdiction. 4. August 27, 2025 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 11777-2024 complainant, for sale consideration of Rs. 23,20,000/ Rs. 3,20,000/- was paid in advance by the complainan Petitioner is reaping benefit of interim order dated 13.03.2024, staying her arrest, without complying with the conditions, subject to which her arrest was stayed. In view of above, it is obvious that this petition f anticipatory bail has been kept pending for about one and half years and is being getting adjourned by learned counsel for the petitioner pretext or the other. It is settled law that in a bail petition, the Court concerned not to travel beyond the jurisdictional purview of bail jurisdiction to enter into l disputes between the parties [Please see : U.P. and others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 196 Apex Court in paragraph 15 of its judgment dated 25.10.2024 rendered in Ramratan @ Ramswaroop @ another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 4403 of 2024]. What comes out loud and clear from the aforesaid dis that petitioner – accused has misused the liberty granted by this Court and, therefore, is not entitled any order under discretionary bail jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. August 27, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2- complainant, for sale consideration of Rs. 23,20,000/-, out of which a sum of was paid in advance by the complainant to co-accused Mandeep Petitioner is reaping benefit of interim order dated 13.03.2024, staying her arrest, without complying with the conditions, subject to which her In view of above, it is obvious that this petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been kept pending for about one and half years and is being getting adjourned by learned counsel for the petitioner – accused on one It is settled law that in a bail petition, the Court concerned ought not to travel beyond the jurisdictional purview of bail jurisdiction to enter into l disputes between the parties [Please see : Mahesh Chandra Vs. State of (2006) 6 SCC 196 (paragraph 3), followed by Apex Court in paragraph 15 of its judgment dated 25.10.2024 rendered in Ramratan @ Ramswaroop @ another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh What comes out loud and clear from the aforesaid discussion is accused has misused the liberty granted by this Court and, therefore, is not entitled any order under discretionary bail jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE Yes/No Yes/No , out of which a sum of accused Mandeep Petitioner is reaping benefit of interim order dated 13.03.2024, staying her arrest, without complying with the conditions, subject to which her or grant of anticipatory bail has been kept pending for about one and half years and is accused on one ought not to travel beyond the jurisdictional purview of bail jurisdiction to enter into Mahesh Chandra Vs. State of (paragraph 3), followed by Apex Court in paragraph 15 of its judgment dated 25.10.2024 rendered in Ramratan @ Ramswaroop @ another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, cussion is accused has misused the liberty granted by this Court and, NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.01 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment