JUDGMENT : 

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 19 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and are also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fifteen days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The state's counsel opposes the bail. Reply dated 07.03.2024 filed by State counsel today in the Court is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to counsel for the petitioner.

5. The prosecution case is being taken from reply dated 07.03.2024, which reads as follows:

'4. That after the creation of new road alignment in the above mentioned five villages the accused Anand Sagar Sharma the then SDM-cum-CALA Hoshiarpur involved his near and close persons namely Harpinder Singh etc. That accused Harpinder Singh started purchasing the agricultural land in villages Khawaspur and Hardokhanpur in his own name and in the name of his family members/relatives/close associates. Thereafter, in connivance and conspiracy with accused Anand sagar sharma, the accused Harpinder Singh and other accused mentioned in this FIR received compensation on colony/residential rates, which is totally unfair and illegal in the eyes of law. It is worth while to mention here that the present SIT while during the course of investigation obtained reports from the concerned departments to verify and investigate the facts as following:

5. That as per the law laid down in the National Highway Act 1956 under section 3D(2);-

6. Detail of sequentially published notifications regarding the acquisition of land under National Highway 70 (Now NH-3) (Jalandhar-Chintpurani) as following:

6. Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that there is no justification of custodial interrogation and evidence available against him is that he has put his signatures on behalf of co-accused Hardeep Kaur and Rupinder Singh as purchaser in two sale deeds.

7. State counsel opposes the bail by referring to paragraph 7 of the reply dated 07.03.2024, which reads as follows:

'That the accused Sucha Singh is well known to co-accused Harpinder Singh. The accused/petitioner in connivance and conspiracy with co-accused Harpinder Singh appeared on behalf of co-accused Hardeep kaur and co-accused Rupinder Singh at the time of 2 sale deeds respectively bearing number 909 and 908 both dated 29/4/2016 and got them registered in the name of co-accused Hardeep Kaur and co-accused Rupinder Singh even after the notification under 3D and 3G. It is pertinent to mention here that the co-accused Hardeep Kaur wife of Rupinder Singh is sister in law of co-accused Harpinder Singh and co-accused Rupinder Singh is real brother of co-accused Harpinder Singh. This way the accused/petitioner cheated and defraud real owners of the land and got co-accused Hardeep Kaur grabbed huge compensation amount which is in crores.

8. Given the penal provisions imposed and the sentence provided by the Legislature, the nature of allegations coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course correct. Even a prima facie perusal of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the bail petition ne