IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
Renu Mehta and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 22415 of 2022
Decided On : 22-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over property ownership and investment (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. failure to fulfill conditions by petitioners (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. continuous breach of agreement (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. petitioners' intent to defraud (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. calculating damages from unfulfilled agreements (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. court's responsibility to ensure equity and fairness (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. conclusion and granting of bail with conditions (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Petitioners, namely Renu Mehta, aged 51 years and her husband-Neeraj Mehta, aged 56 years, have filed the present petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 0078, dated 21.04.2022, under Sections 406 , 420 and 120-B of IPC , registered at Police Station Phase-I, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) [Annexure P-2].
2. This case revolves around a property dispute amongst the petitioners and the complainant, concerning an industrial plot, bearing No. D-38, Industrial Area, Phase-I, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), measuring 1416.67 Square Yards. The said plot is jointly owned by both the petitioners, having 50% share each.
3. Before setting out the details of the transaction in chronological sequence, it would be appropriate to first refer to the FIR (supra) registered by the complainant, Gurdev Sahai Marwah, which reads as under:
“1. That the Complainant No. 1 who is a senior citizen, has been residing at the above mentioned address in the United States of America for a long time and has given her General Power of Attorney dated 07.09.1985 (copy enclosed) to her close relative i.e. the Complainant No. 2, which is duly embossed by the Finance and Planning Officer, Chandigarh Administration (copy enclosed), the same has been valid and subsisting till today as the same has not been revoked, thus, the Complainant No. 2 is well competent to represent the Complainant No. 1 and to conduct the proceedings, who otherwise acquainted/conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present Complaint.
2. That the Complainant No. 2 is also a senior citizen who have Complaint on behalf of the Complainant No. 1 as well as on behalf in his right,
3. That whereas, the said Neeraj Mehta is the husband of the said Renu Mehta who have been the joint owners to the extent of 50% share each in the free hold built-up Industrial Plot No. D-38, Industrial Area, Phase 1, SAS Nagar (Mohali) measuring 1416.67 sq. yds. having covered area of 11000 sq. ft. app. (hereinafter referred to as the said building). There have been two blocks in the said building, the 1st block has been consisting of the Lower Ground Floor, Upper Ground Floor, First Floor, whereas the 2nd block has been consisting of the Lower Ground Floor, Upper Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor. The said building has been having seven tenants from whom the rental income has been accruing @ Rs. 2,03,000/-per month with the applicable increment clause, and whereas, an area of 6500 sq. ft. has been lying vacant as on 24.04.2018. It is also important to mention here that there has been a loan against the said building to the tune of Rs. 1,59,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Nine Lacs only) from Magma Fincorp Ltd. as on 24.04.2018.
4. That both the alleged persons have been having personal as well as business relations with the Complainant No. 2 for a long time and have thus won over his trust, and have been approaching him to seek one or the other help over a period of time as they have always been in some sort of financial crisis. Due to their pressing need and compelling circumstances, they approached the Complainants to sell the 100% share in the said building to which the Complainants agreed to purchase the same believing their representation to be true and being so induced by them, an Agreement to Sell dated 24.04.2018 (copy enclosed) was duly executed in good faith on requisite stamp papers between the Parties on various terms and conditions, which was duly Notarized as well, the content of the said Ag

Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another
The court emphasized that parties must adhere to contract terms, with equitable considerations influencing the grant of bail in criminal cases involving substantial financial transactions.
The court may grant bail considering the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, risk of witness tampering, and evidence available, balancing personal liberty and public interest.
Conspiracy - Rejection of application for anticipatory bail - Required in-depth investigation.
Point of Law : Conspiracy - Rejection of application for anticipatory bail - Required in-depth investigation
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.