IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 27.02.2026 Tarsem Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Simranjeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate and Ms. Dhwani Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2- Bikram Singh in case bearing FIR No. 240 dated 31.08.2024, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Police District Batala, vide order dated 07.10.2024, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the petitioner/complainant alleging that his son Harvinder Singh, was having a plot in the area of New Urban Estate, Batala and wanted to raise construction thereon. The complainant on behalf of his son had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 for the purpose of raising construction on the said plot for a sum of Rs.87,42,000/- on 23.11.2021. A cheque for an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs was given by way of advance and subsequently also, a huge amount of money was given to respondent No. 2/accused but he failed to complete his contractual obligations by making excuses on one pretext or the other, thereby causing wrongful loss of money as well as mental harassment to the petitioner and, therefore, he prayed for taking action against respondent No.2.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Apprehending his arrest, respondent No. 2 moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail and vide order dated 27.09.2024, he was granted interim bail. The matter was also sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre at Gurdaspur on willingness of respondent No. 2 and the petitioner. A settlement/agreement dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) was executed between the parties. The learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 07.10.2024, made the interim bail, granted to respondent No. 2, absolute by making the following observations:

“Heard. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Gurdaspur and as per report received from the Mediation Centre, the parties have settled the dispute vide settlement deed dated 3.10.2024. As per said settlement deed, the applicant/accused has to complete the construction of the building of the complainant party and the detailed terms and conditions have been incorporated in the said settlement deed. Under these circumstances, the interim order dated 27.09.2024 is made absolute. Both the parties shall remain bound by the terms of the said settlement deed. The application stands disposed off. File be consigned to the record room.”

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 2 had been extended benefit of bail by the learned Sessions Judge keeping in view the fact that he had executed a settlement deed with the petitioner and was ready to complete the construction of his building as per the terms and conditions of the settlement deed. However, respondent No. 2 failed to comply with the terms and conditions thereof. It is further submitted that violation of the terms and conditions of the settlement deed on the part of respondent No. 2 has made him disentitled to remain on anticipatory bail. Therefore, it is argued that benefit of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 is liable to be withdrawn and the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Reply has been filed by the respondent-State, as per which, respondent No. 2 has not joined the investigation of the till date. In view thereof, learned S