CRM-M- 22126-2026(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226 CRM-M-22126-2026(O&M) Decided on :28.07.2026 Pardeep . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhyudaya Paliwal, Advocate Mr. Nikhil Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 306 dated 22.09.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 351(2) of the BNS (corresponding to Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC), at Police Station Asaoda, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana. 2. Copy of the order dated 03.06.2026 passed by this Court qua co-accused Rajesh Dagar, produced by learned counsel for the petitioner, is taken on record. Facts of the case, as recorded in the said order, read as under: “As per the case of the complainant/prosecution, one Ashok Singh (main accused) was the owner of plot measuring 250 square yards, having valid title vide registered sale deed dated 20.05.2020. The said plot was agreed to be sold to RASHMI 2026.07.29 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 22126-2026(O&M) 2 complainant-Ankit (respondent No.2), for a total sale consideration of Rs.58,12,500/-. Subsequently, by mutual oral agreement, plot was divided between two purchasers i.e. complainant-Ankit, who was to purchase 135 square yards and Sushma (a relative of Ankit), who was to purchase 115 square yards. For complainant-Ankit’s portion, total sale price was Rs.38,00,000/-, while for Sushma’s portion, the amount was Rs.19,55,000/- .” 3. Paragraph No. 9 of the status report dated 09.07.2026 clearly reflects that, as per the CCTV footage dated 24.10.2025 obtained from Canara Bank, Nangloi, Delhi, and Union Bank of India, Nangloi, Delhi, accused Ashok, Pradeep, and Upender @ Manoj were seen withdrawing cash from the said banks. 4. On a query put by the Court, it has been submitted that co- accused Upender @ Manoj, who was also noticed to be present in the bank and has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, did not receive any amount in his bank account. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that the role of co-accused Upender @ Manoj is entirely different and distinguishable from that of present petitioner-Pradeep, co-accused Ashok, and Rajesh Dagar, who had allegedly supplied the forged sale deed to Ashok and Manoj for entering into the transaction with complainant-Ankit. 6. Apart from the above, an amount of Rs. 71,000/- was directly deposited by complainant-Ankit into the bank account of the present petitioner-Pradeep. It is further borne out from the record that on two occasions, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- each (total Rs. 20,00,000/-) RASHMI 2026.07.29 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 22126-2026(O&M) 3 was transferred by accused Ashok into the bank account of the petitioner- Pradeep. 7. Considering the aforesaid material available on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 8. Investigating Officer concerned is directed to proceed further in accordance with law. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 28.07.2026 Rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.29 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document