IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26764-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 MAHIPAL ....Petitioner V/s STATE OF HARYANA .…Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer in the present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0033, dated 02.03.2026 under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Bahuakbarpur, District Rohtak. 2. On 13.05.2026, the following order was passed by a Coordinate Bench:- “1. Present is the first petition filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.33 dated 02.03.2026, registered under Section 318(4) BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 420 IPC), at Police Station Bahuakbarpur, District Rohtak. 2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Bajrang Lal alleging that he came into contact with accused-Mahipal through one Hari Om, who induced him to purchase land situated in Village Mokhra Khas by assuring that he would arrange a valid and clear transfer of ownership. Relying upon the said MANI KUMAR 2026.07.08 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26764-2026 (O&M) -2- representations, the complainant entered into an agreement dated 01.07.2025 with the accused for purchase of land measuring 19 Kanal 18 Marla and paid an amount of Rs.23,20,000/- through different modes including cheque, NEFT and cash. However, before the scheduled date of registration, i.e 26.12.2025, the complainant came to know that a portion of the land had already been sold to Rekha Rani and the remaining land had been sold to another person namely Aarti, without the knowledge or consent of the complainant. It is further alleged that accused persons namely Mahipal, Rohtas, Rajbala and Vikas acted in connivance with each other and prepared forged documents in order to cheat the complainant and extract money from him. Even after execution of the agreement, the accused persons allegedly continued to extort money and dishonestly disposed of the property and also extended threats to the complainant and his family. Upon inquiry conducted by the Economic Offences Branch, Rohtak, prima-facie evidence of cheating and fraud was found, whereafter the present FIR came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present FIR has been lodged on false and fabricated allegations and that the dispute, if any, is purely of civil nature arising out of an agreement to sell. It has been argued that the petitioner had sufficient land available in his favour and there was no dishonest intention on his part from the very inception. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had duly joined the investigation pursuant to the interim protection granted by the Court and fully cooperated with the investigating agency. However, the Investigating Officer falsely alleged non-cooperation only because the petitioner refused to succumb to the illegal pressure of paying double the amount to the complainant, which by itself MANI KUMAR 2026.07.08 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26764-2026 (O&M) -3- cannot be construed as non-cooperation in investigation. It has further been argued that learned Court below, despite earlier granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subsequently dismissed his anticipatory bail application on the incorrect premise that he had not joined the investigation. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was even harassed and beaten by the Investigating Officer during investigation and that the conduct of the IO clearly reflects connivance with the complainant party. It has also been contended that the allegations regarding forged documents are baseless and that even otherwise the agreements in question bore the signatures of co-sharers Sagar and Rohit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that similarly situated co-accused namely Rajbala, Vikas and Rohtash have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief on the ground of parity. It is thus prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State. 6. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate, has also appeared on behalf of the complainant and filed memorandum of appearance, which is taken on the record. 7. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the present petition and argued that serious allegations of cheating and fraud have been levelled against the petitioner. It has been contended that during investigation, it was found that the same stamp papers had been utilized for preparation of more than one agreement to sell and forged documents were prepared in order to deceive the MANI KUMAR 2026.07.08 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26764-2026 (O&M) -4- complainant party. It has further been argued that the petitioner induced the complainant to purchase land measuring 19 Kanal 18 Marla and received an amount of Rs.23,20,000/- through different modes including cheque, NEFT and cash, despite the fact that substantial portion of the land had already been sold to other persons prior to the execution of the agreement with the complainant. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner intentionally concealed these material facts and dishonestly induced the complainant to part with huge amount of money. It has further been argued that documentary evidence including registry records, bank statements, forged agreements and payment proofs have been collected during investigation, which prima-facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Learned State counsel has also submitted that the petitioner did not cooperate during investigation and avoided joining the investigation despite notices issued to him and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for proper recovery of documents and to unearth the entire conspiracy. In addition, learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the petitioner, in connivance with the co-accused, cheated the complainant by executing false and fabricated agreements and thereafter, disposed of the property to third parties. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Without commenting upon the merits of the case in detail, this Court notices that the dispute between the parties primarily arises out of an agreement to sell pertaining to immovable property. It is also not disputed that the transaction in question is substantially supported by documentary evidence already in possession of the investigating agency. The petitioner has contended that MANI KUMAR 2026.07.08 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26764-2026 (O&M) -5- he had joined the investigation pursuant to the interim protection earlier granted and the question whether there was deliberate non-cooperation or not would be a matter to be examined during investigation and trial. At this stage, custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary. 10. This Court also finds substance in the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that similarly situated co-accused namely Rajbala, Vikas and Rohtash have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the dispute appears to have predominant civil flavour arising out of contractual obligations relating to sale of land, though criminal allegations have also been levelled by the complainant. The veracity of the allegations regarding forged agreements, use of stamp papers and receipt of consideration amount would be a matter of evidence during trial. 11. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer concerned. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS. 12. List on 07.07.2026.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has duly joined investigation. 4. Learned counsel representing the State of Haryana, on instructions, submits that in compliance of the order dated 13.05.2026, the petitioner has duly joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required. 5. In view of the fact that petitioner has duly joined investigation MANI KUMAR 2026.07.08 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26764-2026 (O&M) -6- and keeping in view the statement given by learned counsel representing the State of Haryana, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 13.05.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to compliance of the provisions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE July 07, 2026 Mani Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MANI KUMAR 2026.07.08 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document