##PAGE1##

CRM-M-68609-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(120) CRM-M-68609-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 25.03.2026 GURPREET SINGH SIDHU

... Petitioner

Versus STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sonpreet S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab

****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.113 dated 22.07.2020 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Kharar, SAS

Nagar (Mohali).

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Jagdeep Singh alleging that in the year 2016, he booked an apartment in a society named as Emerging Heights-3, Sector 115, Greater Mohali. The sale consideration amount was fixed to be Rs.31 lakhs and he had paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as booking amount. The present petitioner, who was representing the above-named company/society got his loan

AMIT SHARMA

2026.03.25 19:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-68609-2025 (O&M) 2

sanctioned from India Bulls Bank, Chandigarh Branch in his name, for the purchase of flat and had told him that the remaining amount of the sale consideration would be adjusted from the loan amount. The said sum of Rs.17 lakhs was deducted by the petitioner from the loan account of the complainant and an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- was taken as 20% of the total price of the apartment. In this manner, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.23,70,000/- to the company/society. However, neither the possession of the said apartment was given to him nor his money was returned. By alleging that the petitioner

had cheated him, the complainant prayed for taking action against him.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 24.04.2025. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. He is not required for investigation purposes. Trial will take considerable time to conclude. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. He has prepared a demand draft for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs in favour of the complainant and is ready to pay the same to him, though he has not been in contact with him. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, stressed that he deserves to be released

on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender, as he had cheated several other persons and as many as 09 cases have been registered

AMIT SHARMA

2026.03.25 19:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-68609-2025 (O&M) 3

against him. He had even absconded and was declared a proclaimed person and as such has been booked under Section 174A of IPC also in another case. There are chances of his absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued

that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties at considerable length.

7. The petitioner is alleged to have duped the complainant of a sum of Rs.23,70,000/- on the pretext of allotting/selling a flat in his favour, however, neither the possession of the plot was given to the complainant nor his money has been returned. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of the subject offences against the petitioner. However, he has remained in custody since 24.04.2025. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period. The well settled proposition