[2025:RJ-JP:42577] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12287/2025 Arvind Jindal S/o Shri Charanjeet Pal Jindal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o H.no. W 3, Green Park Main New Delhi 16 P.s. Safdarganj, Delhi. (Accused At Present Confined In Sub Jail Kishangarhbas, District Khairthal-Tijara). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia Mr. Divesh Sharma Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/10/2025 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Arvind Jindal S/o Shri Charanjeet Pal Jindal, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.152/2025 dated 18.06.2025 registered at P.S. Choupanki, District -Bhiwadi, for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:42577] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-12287/2025] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for applicant while placing reliance upon grounds of bail submitted that firm of complainant and firm of present applicant have entered into a business agreement and to ensure security of advance money, an additional agreement to sale was executed between them followed by MoU and possession letter. One of the condition was that the complainant will pay entire agreed amount till 31.05.2022 so that present petitioner may meet out his requirements to pay his borrower- State Bank of India and RFC. He also submitted that in pursuant to said agreement when complainant has failed to perform his part then by a notice, present applicant has canceled the agreement to sell entered between the parties. He further submitted that thereafter one FIR was registered at PS Choupanki for the same transaction for committing offence under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court has passed a stay order of no coercive action, but despite that, police has filed a charge sheet. He also referred the material on the record and submitted that, on same transaction, the complainant has registered another criminal matter at Faridabad wherein, after inquiry, the matter is closed by the police. He referred the conclusion drawn by Economic Offence Wing of Ballabhgarh Zone, Faridabad, and submitted that the documents submitted by complainant were found suspicious and in closure report, police has found that the property in question is in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, and a [2025:RJ-JP:42577] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-12287/2025] proceeding under Section 145 of CrPC was also instituted. He further submitted that complainant has tried to grab the property by instituting a proceeding under Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. which was later dropped by the SDM. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner further referred the material on record and submitted that when complainant has failed to perform his part of contract with present applicant then under the pressure of financial institution to clear dues, the petitioner has obtained sale permission and after procuring the permission the property in question was sold by way of registered sale deed. He also submitted that after two and a half years after the agreement the sale deed was executed and on subsequent sale deed another FIR is registered wherein police has arrested present applicant. He also submitted that the document on record clearly indicate that it was a pure business transaction and complainant was defaulter in making payment, therefore the petitioner has canceled the agreement and arising out of same transaction three matters were registered by the complainant which is an abuse of process of law. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 6. Learned counsel for complainant opposed the bail application on the ground that out of total land of present applicant, half of the land has been sold and possession was delivered to the complainant but the applicant-accused with intention to [2025:RJ-JP:42577] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-12287/2025] cheat has procured money from the complainant and later he refused to sell the property. He further submitted that earlier police reports were registered for different cause of action but knowing fully well that there was an agreement to sell and present petitioner has received substantial part of sale consideration from complainant and despite that he executed a registered sale deed in favor of other accused at throwaway price. He further submitted that complainant has already filed a suit for specific performance and same is pending. He further submitted that the petitioner has issued a cheque of ₹1.5 crore and same is dishonored and a criminal case for dishonor of cheque is filed against the applicant. He also submitted that 2250 square meter land was sold to complainant by way of agreement to sale, with delivery of possession. He also submitted that another FIR No. 48/2023 at P.S. Choupanki is on different cause than present one and after investigation police has filed a charge- sheet against the applicant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties including case diary. 8. On basis of a complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate by complainant-Atal Singhal, through Power of Attorney Anita Singhal, same is sent for registration by invoking power under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. After registration of F.I.R. on 18.06.2025, the police has investigated the matter and during investigation found that on 22.03.2022, present applicant has entered into an agreement to sell and received [2025:RJ-JP:42577] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-12287/2025] ₹2.4 crores as an advance amount against the sale of said land but remaining ₹1,10,00,000/- were not paid till date. The police has also found that on 28.10..2024, the accused have sold entire land to one M/s Venketaesh Real Tech Private Limited on consideration of ₹5,79,81000/-. According to police, petitioner has committed the total cheating of ₹2.40 crores from complainant. 9. The material on record referred by learned counsel indicate that there is a manufacturing agreement executed on 13.03.2021 and present applicant has submitted details of ledger account of firm of complainant to show that both are having financial transaction with each other. On 17.02.2022 Universal Metallic Pvt. Ltd has entered into an agreement to sell 2250 square metre land to complainant Atal Singhal. A specific mention of about SBI and RFC indicates that the money has to be paid to SBI and RFC to clear dues. A MoU dated 02.03.2022 is also placed on record to show that there was a further understanding between the parties to re- transfer said land by Atal Singhal to M/s Universal Metallic Pvt Ltd on payment of Rs 3.5 crore. The agreement also indicate that there was a monthly charge of ₹3.5 lacs per month for a period of 18-24 months payable to complainant. 10. A copy of possession letter dated 02.03.2022 and permission is also placed on record along with an understanding about security cheque. A proceeding under section 145 of CrPC was initially instituted at P.S. Choupanki on basis of complaint dated 19.05.2022 by Atal Singhal but same is dropped on 26.05.2022. A notice for cancellation of [2025:RJ-JP:42577] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-12287/2025] agreement to sale dated 17.02.2022 by present applicant is also placed on record to show that the documents entered between the parties was canceled. A complaint dated 15.06.2020 is filed before the Commissioner of Police Sector 21, Faridabad, Haryana by complainant-Atal Singhal and after inquiry same is closed. We have considered the observations made against the complainant. Thereafter, FIR no. 48/2023 was registered at P.S. Chopanki on 17.02.2023 by Atal Singhal arising out of same transaction and present applicant has filed a petition under section 482 of CrPC and on 20.04.2023 in said petition no. 1864/2023, a co-ordinate bench has directed protected present applicant from coercive action. 11. RFC and SBI both have issued notice to complainant and after recurring a permission for sale from SBI, the property is sold to M/s Ventekesh Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. by way of registered sale deed for a sale consideration of ₹5,79,81000/- and afterwards a present FIR is registered. The facts as mentioned hereinabove clearly indicate that the parties have entered into a business agreement and both are having a financial transactions. Two more criminal proceedings were instituted by same complainant and it indicate that in a business transaction, instead of invoking jurisdiction of Civil court, the complainant has opted for criminal proceedings. The police report clearly indicate that in FIR No. 48/2023, a charge-sheet, has been filed against the petitioner arising out of same transaction but after execution of registered sale deed, present FIR is registered. [2025:RJ-JP:42577] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-12287/2025] 12. Considering the allegation and counter allegation of both the parties, there are lots of legal issues which requires consideration and it includes the jurisdiction of police to entertain such kind of complaints where the parties are having a business transaction. The law over the bail is quite settled and considering the entire material on the record, it is a fit case wherein the Court has to consider grant of bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 13. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicant-accused is no more required in the investigation and he is in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant- accused. 14. Thus, the second bail application filed on behalf of applicant-accused Arvind Jindal S/o Shri Charanjeet Pal Jindal, is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. [2025:RJ-JP:42577] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-12287/2025] (iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled. 15. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /236-S