Anticipatory bail granted as no substantial basis for pre-trial incarceration was found, emphasizing that evidence does not justify denying bail at this stage.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. As per the present FIR, which was registered on the basis of the complaint made by complainant Mohd. Nasar, the complainant had inherited land measure 161K-18 M at Vill. Kuliewal and land measuring 61K-1 M at Vill. Jamalpur Awana. His uncle Ali Mohd. expired on 19.9.1985 and his father expired on 22.6.2016. Out of the abovesaid land, some part of the land was leased out to one Raju for a period of five years. Eucalyptus trees were sown in some part of the land. On 19.9.2024, said Raju intimated the complainant that Sukhwinder Singh and Jaspreet Singh were cutting the eucalyptus trees with JCB and loading in their tractor-trolleys. When said Raju tried to stop them, they hurled abuses and threatened to kill him. When complainant reached the spot, he found that10/15 eucalyptus trees were extracted by Sukhwinder Singh and Jaspreet Singh and they tried to take forcible possession of his land, at the instance of Jaskiranjit Singh Gill (Petitioner).

4. The arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner are that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and he can demonstrate his seriousness about practice through his case diary etc; his father was also a practicing lawyer; no FIR is pending against him except the one which was also registered by the present complainant and which was in effect registered against his father, who has expired in 2018; the petitioner has already disclosed all his assets which would absolved him of any such illegal transactions. Petitioner’s counsel has further argued that the complainant had sold the land in question in 1971, on which an illegal colony has come up and the petitioner has no role.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is illegally and illicitly selling the land owned by the complainant to innocent people on slips by assuring them that they can raise construction thereon and nothing will happen and eventually, sale deed will be registered. It is for this reason, Sections 467 and 468 IPC have been added. Complainant’s counsel strongly opposes the bail and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to bail because he has cheated hundred of people. He further submits that since the complainant normally resides at Malerkotla and the land is situated at Ludhiana, as such the petitioner took advantage of his absence and illegally sold the land to poor people and eventually, cheated them also.

6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

7. Petitioner’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. He further submits, on instructions, that in case this Court grants bail to the petitioner, he shall not even enter the disputed property and in case he does so, the State shall be at liberty file an application for cancellation of bail, to which they will not raise any objection.

8. It would be a