210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.02.2026 Bijender Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepidner Singh Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.162 dated 16.08.2020, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Sushant Lok, District Gurugram.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of the complainant, namely, Meenakshi Bhujwala. It was alleged that she alongwith her husband Hormouj Bhujwala purchased a plot measuring 350 sq. meter in Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurugram vide a registered sale deed dated 16.10.1991 and she alongwith her husband was in possession of the said plot. She went to the office of Sub Registrar Wazirabad as she was planning to raise construction on her plot and wanted some documents from the said office. On reaching there, she came to know that qua that plot owned by her and her husband, a family relation deed bearing No.5473 dated 28.06.2019 was registered in favour of one Ankit Bhujwala showing him to be as son of the complainant and her husband, whereas, they had no son with that name. It was alleged that another sale deed bearing No.12082 dated 24.10.2019, got registered by the above said Ankit Bhujwala in the name of one firm namely M/s Hardwari Lal Madan Gopal. The complainant alleged that these sale deed had been executed by impersonating her and her husband and with intent to deprive her of her property in pursuance of some conspiracy. Thus, request for taking legal action was made. FIR was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and resultantly, he was arrested on 20.12.2024. He approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 24.12.2025. Earlier also, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-1256-2025, CRM-M-32437-2025 and CRM-M- 36669-2025, however, the same were dismissed/dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide orders dated 05.02.2025, 04.07.2025 and 23.09.2025, respectively. Hence, the petitioner has again approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present fourth petition.

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the allegations against the petitioner are to the effect that he wrongly identified the seller. It is submitted that co-accused, who is a Lawyer, has already been granted anticipatory bail, whereas, the petitioner is behind the bars from the last 11 months in the present case. He submits that even otherwise, the sale deed which was executed in the present case, lateron has been set aside vide Annexure P-6 and possession of the land is with the original owner. He further submits that though he is involved in five cases, however, he is on bail in four cases. He, thus, submits that in the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently controverted the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had played an active role in the fraud committed with the complainant. On instructions, he submits that charges have been framed, however, no witness has been examined out of total 14 prosecution witnesses. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and peru