IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Surender @ Shalender ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of Decision: March 25, 2026 Date of Uploading: March 25, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Karan Jangra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.

Ms. Garima Dixit, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. 202 dated 25.09.2025 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-

B IPC, at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.

2. The gravamen of the instant FIR reflects that it emanates from a complaint lodged by the complainant-Mohan Lal, who alleged that the petitioner (herein), in connivance with co-accused Madan, Umed, Om Parkash, Rajender, Prithvi, Rajesh, Sonu and Sita Ram Patwari, dishonestly and fraudulently cheated him in a land transaction. He has alleged that the petitioner (herein), despite having already executed a sale deed dated 22.05.2018, in respect of a portion of his land in favour of certain co- accused through a sham transaction, subsequently entered into an agreement to sell the same land measuring 9 kanals 6 marlas to the complainant on ₹

13.01.2022 and received an amount of 7,50,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly disposed of the remaining land as well, thereby having no intention to honour the agreement. Thus, all the accused, acting in collusion, are alleged to have deceived the complainant and misappropriated his money, leading to the registration of the present FIR. Upon these set of allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It is contended that the petitioner has never committed any offence. He has further contended that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and he is suffering from serious medical ailments. In this regard, he has also relied upon medical record of the petitioner (Annexure P-2 colly.). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has not committed any forgery. Counsel submits that the petitioner has not received any amount. Learned counsel has further contended that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel (assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while raising arguments in tandem with the reply dated 16.03.2026 has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature.

Relevant paragraphs of the said reply reads thus:

“That during the course of investigation conducted so far, substantial documentary as well as oral evidence has come on record against the petitioner-accused Surendra alias Shalender, which prima facie establishes his involvement in the alleged conspiracy and cheating of the complainant. The certified copies of Sale Deed No. 382 dated 22.05.2018, Agreement to Sell No. 3256 dated 13.01.2022 and Sale Deed No. 276 dated 15.05.2025 were obtained