IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gagandeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 16.03.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 18.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full

4 Full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not

5 reasons thereof applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Avtar S. Khinda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. S. Randhawa, Advocate and Ms. Simerpreet Sekhon, 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- Udham Singh in case arising out of FIR No. 299 dated 19.04.2023, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, vide order dated 19.04.2023, passed by this Court in CRM-M-34396-2020

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner with the allegations that respondent No. 2, in connivance with other co-accused, had forged and fabricated an agreement to sell dated 30.04.2012 as the same was having no details of the stamp vendor, who had sold it. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Apprehending his arrest, respondent No. 2 filed the aforementioned petition before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail. Vide order dated 29.10.2020, the arrest of respondent No. 2 was stayed. Subsequently, he was granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order 19.04.2023.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 is liable to be withdrawn as the same had been procured by respondent No. 2 by misleading the Court. A perusal of order dated 29.10.2020 would clearly indicate that interim relief in the form of stay on arrest was granted to respondent No. 2 on a categoric statement made by his counsel that respondent No. 2 ready to relinquish all rights accrued by virtue of the alleged agreement to sell. However, respondent No. 2 instituted a civil suit for specific performance on the basis of the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 30.04.2012, while also challenging the subsequent sale deeds dated 22.07.2013 and 25.02.2013. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 22.11.2019.

It is further argued that the petitioner has already moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, inter alia on the ground that respondent No. 2 had given an undertaking before this Court on 29.10.2020 to relinquish his rights arising out of the agreement to sell. While opposing the said application, respondent No. 2 has taken a contradictory stand before the trial Court by asserting that no such undertaking was ever given and that he had merely made an offer before this Court. Respondent No. 2 secured the concession of anticipatory bail from this Court on the representation that he would not claim any rights under the agreement to sell dated 30.04.2012 and on that basis, interim bail was confirmed on 19.04.2023 but he has now resiled from the said undertaking and is actively pursuing civil rights arising out of the same agreement, thereby misleading the Court and abusing the concession of bail. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be recalled, the petition deserves to be allowed and the benefit of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 is liable t