CRM-M-43715-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43715-2025 Date of decision: 19.08.2025 Kamaljit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Abhishek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of this peon filed under Secon 483 of Bharaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 prayer is made for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.115 dated 22.05.2025, under Secons 420, 406 IPC, registered at Police Staon City Rupnagar, District Rupnagar. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that it is purely a ma,er of civil nature which has been given the criminal colour. Besides, the alleged incident pertains to the year 2017 whereas FIR has been lodged in May 2025. Learned counsel further submits that case is triable by the Magistrate and that trial may take me to conclude and so he be released on bail. 3. Noce of moon. 4. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts noce on behalf Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.20 10:10 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-43715-2025 [2] of the State. Learned State counsel has drawn the a,enon to the fact that peoner is involved in as many as 12 other cases of similar nature. 5. FIR was lodged on the complaint of one Varun Saini, as per which, peoner had entered into an agreement dated 24.10.2017 to sell land measuring 50 sq. yards to him and his father. They agreed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- to the peoner. Peoner borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- and gave a cheque of the same amount as security promising to return the same within a month. It was alleged further that on 15.11.2017 peoner along with brother-in-law came to their hotel for ge:ng the sale deed registered, as per the agreement. Almost all the formalies were completed, when father of the complainant suffered heart a,ack and collapsed in the Tehsildar’s room. Due to sudden death of father of the complainant, registraon was not completed. Later on, peoner was approached for returning the money, but he stopped taking the calls. 6. A bare perusal of the contents of the FIR would reveal that prima facie it is a case of civil nature. The alleged agreement to sell was executed way back in 2017, whereas the present FIR has been lodged in May 2025 when apparently, the remedy of the complainant either to file a suit for specific performance or to seek recovery, had become barred by me. Complainant appears to have found a novel way to put pressure on peoner by ge:ng an FIR registered against the peoner. 7. Simply because, peoner is involved in other similar cases, cannot be a ground to decline regular bail to him, parcularly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as menoned above. As such, without commenng anything on the merits Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.20 10:10 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-43715-2025 [3] of the case, peoner is admi,ed to bail. He is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the sasfacon of learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, on usual terms and condions. 8. Allowed. 19.08.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.20 10:10 I agree to specified portions of this document