102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.45123 of 2026 Date of Decision:-20.08.2026 Vikram Singh …..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Anil Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Sahni, Addl. A.G, Haryana. Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate and Mr. Anuj Y. Attri, Advocate for the complainant. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition, instituted under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’), is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0067 dated 12.05.2026 registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula. 2. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, along with Annexures R-1 to R-3 and vernacular versions thereof, filed in Court today and reply on behalf of the complainant, along with Annexures R-1 to R-9 and vernacular versions thereof, filed in the Registry, are taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the case file. YAG DUTT 2026.08.21 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.45123 of 2026 -2- 3. On a complaint submitted by one Deepak Kumar, the FIR in question was registered against Vikram Singh (petitioner), Paramjit Kaur, Inder Singh and Ram Kumar. The translated version of the same (as given in Annexure P-2) is as under:- “Respectfully, it is submitted that in the year 2023, the accused Vikram Singh and Ram Kumar approached us, stating that accused Vikram Singh is the owner and possessor of 7 killas (acres) of-land-in Mauja Gobindpur, where land prices were expected to rise significantly. Believing them, we decided to purchase the land, and an agreement was executed on 18.08.2023 at the rate of 35 lakh per acre. As per the agreement, we gave four cheques of 10 lakh each and 3 lakh in cash to the accused. Out of these four cheques, Cheque Nos. 533102 and 533103 totaling 20 lakh were cashed. The final date for registry was set as 31.04.2024. The accused had taken a bank loan on the land and assured us that the loan would be cleared before registry. When we informed the accused that Cheque Nos. 533104 and 533105 were not cleared by the bank, they claimed the cheques had been misplaced and demanded cash payment instead. As per their demand, we paid 20 lakh in cash on 02.09.2023. The accused promised to return the cheques if found. We also transferred 7 lakh via RTGS on 19.08.2023, which bounced back due to wrong account details provided by the accused, after which we paid 7 lakh separately. In total, we paid 50 lakh to the accused by 12.03.2024. However, despite repeated requests, the accused did not register any land in our name. Upon repeated pressure, on 12.03.2024, they registered only 4-kanals in our name and extended the registry deadline for the remaining 6 killas 4 YAG DUTT 2026.08.21 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.45123 of 2026 -3- kanals from 31.04.2024 to 30:04.2026. They promised to execute the registry for the remaining land before the extended date. However, they kept stalling. Upon inquiring at the bank, we found that the accused had not deposited any money. Suspicious of their intentions, we made inquiries in the area and learned that the accused and Ram Kumar had taken advance money for this land from several other people, and the bank loan remained pending. When confronted, they misbehaved, abused, and threatened to kill us. Therefore, it is requested that the accused had dishonest intentions from the start, fraudulently extracted 50 lakh from us, and are now refusing to register the land. We are ready to pay the remaining balance, but the accused have taken money from multiple parties. Strict legal action should be taken against them.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It has been argued that a dispute, which is totally civil in nature, has been given the colour of a criminal case. It has been argued that the subsequent agreements to sell alleged to have been executed by the petitioner with other persons with regard to the same land are fake agreements created by the complainant and no reliance can be placed upon them. It has further been submitted that the agreement to sell in question also was, in fact, a security agreement and was never intended to alienate land. Learned counsel submits that even the sale deed qua 4 Kanals of land was the result of a fraud by the complainant, as a result of which a civil suit (Annexure P-1) has been filed by the petitioner and his wife. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a YAG DUTT 2026.08.21 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.45123 of 2026 -4- complaint has also been submitted against the complainant and his family members by one Pardeep Kumar with allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, extortion etc. He submits that the complainant side is also having many litigations and are persons of criminal nature. Learned counsel submits that keeping in view the nature of the dispute, the petitioner may be permitted to join investigation as it is not a case of custodial interrogation. He submits that the petitioner is willing to join investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the Court. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for the grant of anticipatory bail. It has submitted that during the course of investigation, it has emerged that the petitioner executed 07 agreements to sell with different persons with regard to the same land and collected huge amounts as earnest money in each of the agreements. It has been submitted that despite the fact that the petitioner and co-accused were owners of only 34 Kanals of land, an agreement to sell was executed for 07 acres of land and a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was paid by the complainant side. It has been argued that the complainant side has been duped of the said amount by the petitioner and other co-accused. Learned counsel have submitted that no occasion arises to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The allegations against the petitioner and other co-accused are very serious. They are alleged to have executed an agreement to sell on 18.08.2023 stating that they were owners in possession of 07 acres of land. YAG DUTT 2026.08.21 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRM-M No.45123 of 2026 -5- A sum of Rs.50 lakhs is stated to have been paid by the complainant to the accused. However, after much persuasion, sale deed of only 04 Kanals of land was executed on 12.03.2024, but the accused still did not get the sale deed qua the balance 06 acres and 04 Kanals of land executed. It was subsequently found that all accused put together were owners of only 34 Kanals of land whereas they executed an agreement to sell qua 07 acres of land. Not only this, as per the status report, apart from the agreement to sell in question, the accused executed 03 more agreements to sell (seven as per the complainant) with regard to parts of the same land which was a subject matter of the agreement to sell executed with the complainant and received lakhs of rupees as earnest money. No doubt, there is no complaint by the said persons. However, at this stage, it is the allegations which are to be seen and no fact can be proved. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, custodial interrogation of the petitioner and other co-accused would be essential to elicit the truth. Even otherwise, the gravity of the allegations dissuades this Court from extending the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 9. That being so, the present petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 10. However, nothing stated herein above shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) August 20, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No YAG DUTT 2026.08.21 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.