103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.35593 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.07.2026 Gurpreet Kaur …..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) CRM-28331-2026 This is an application moved under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) seeking permission to place on record the additional affidavit of the petitioner. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the additional affidavit of the petitioner is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CRM-M-35593-2026 Prayer in the present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the BNSS is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR YAG DUTT 2026.07.22 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.35593 of 2026 (O&M) -2- No.147 dated 02.08.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on a complaint submitted by complainant Harpal Singh, the FIR in question was registered. The petitioner executed an agreement to sell with regard to a Flat bearing No.126, Block-A, Village Boot, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar, with the complainant, stating that she was the owner of the same. The said agreement to sell was executed on 26.08.2022 for a total sale consideration of Rs.62 lakhs. Rs.30 lakhs were paid as earnest money and the date of registration of the sale deed was fixed as 26.11.2022. As per the case of the complainant, the petitioner, however, backed out of the agreement and did not execute the sale deed. Upon inquiry, it came to the notice of the complainant that the owner of the flat was, in fact, husband of the present petitioner namely Tarvinder Singh and that he had already sold the said flat in 2021 to some other person. Under the circumstances, the FIR was got registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that, in fact, husband of the petitioner is a builder and on his asking, the petitioner used to sign on some documents not knowing about any other details. He submits that though 03 FIRs are registered against the petitioner, she has been granted anticipatory bail in the said FIRs. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, being a lady, is willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the Court. YAG DUTT 2026.07.22 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.35593 of 2026 (O&M) -3- 4. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. They submit that the petitioner and her husband are playing fraud with many other persons and 07 FIRs stand registered against the husband of the petitioner and 03 against the petitioner with similar allegations. It has also been submitted that the flat in question had already been alienated by husband of the petitioner to some other person as far back as in 2021. In that case also, a concealment had been made by husband of the petitioner that they had obtained loan against the plot and the property was mortgaged with the bank. Under the circumstances, the said person to whom the flat had been alienated got an FIR registered against the petitioner in which an application for anticipatory bail was moved and an undertaking was given by husband of the petitioner that Rs.30 lakhs would be refunded but the same had also not been refunded. It has been argued that under the circumstances, it is not a case where the concession of anticipatory bail should be extended to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner executed an agreement to sell with the complainant on 26.08.2022 with regard to a flat. The total sale consideration was Rs.62 lakhs out of which Rs.30 lakhs were paid as earnest money. When the sale deed was not executed, the date for which was 26.11.2022, it came to the notice of the complainant that the flat was, in fact, owned by husband of the petitioner and not by the petitioner and YAG DUTT 2026.07.22 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.35593 of 2026 (O&M) -4- the same had already been alienated. The allegations, therefore, are serious. The petitioner is involved in 03 other cases of similar nature and her husband is involved in 07 other cases of similar nature. It appears to be a modus operandi of the petitioner and her husband rather than the petitioner being an innocent victim. 7. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find the present case to be one where the concession of anticipatory bail should be extended to the petitioner. 8. That being so, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) July 21, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT 2026.07.22 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.