Harjinder Singh @ Kang vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 716

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
MANISHA BATRA
Harjinder Singh @ Kang – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Karan Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Mehak Sharma, Advocate Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate and Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate Mr. H. S. Rakhra, Advocate Ms. Vandana Kohli, Advocate Mr. Nitish Bhatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for GLADA. Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

1. This common order shall dispose of above noted five petitions as these petitions arise out of the same FIR and seek similar relief.

2. These petitions have been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of anticipatory bail to above named petitioners in case bearing FIR No. 0003 dated 08.01.2024, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Model Town, District Ludhiana.

3. Adumbrated fact as emanating from the record are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant Deepak Kathuria, who is owner of a restaurant in Ludhiana, on the allegations that accused Tarun Tanjea, Harwinder Singh Sachdeva and Parminder Singh Sachdeva, who are property dealers, as well as petitioner Harjinder Singh Kang had represented to his uncle Aniljit Singh and himself that one property bearing SCO No. 105, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana, which was owned by accused Mandeep Singh, was available for sale. The complainant and his uncle visited the property and agreed to purchase the same after verifying the documents. The above named accused introduced the com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document