IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 29^th January, 2025 Pronounced on: 7^th February, 2025 Davinder Lather ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Pragyat Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vikas K. Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 365 dated 21.06.2024 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Sector 32-33, District Karnal.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant Sukhdev Singh, making allegations that he was induced by the present petitioner who is a property dealer by profession to enter into an agreement to purchase a house owned by the co-accused Ompati for a sum of Rs. 59,00,000/- by representing that the said house was free from all encumbrances. He had made payment of an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- as earnest money. At the time of execution and registration of sale deed on 31.08.2024, the petitioner, co-accused Ompati and her son i.e. co-accused Surender Singh disclosed that the house to be purchased was lying mortgaged with some bank and they sought extension in the period of registration of sale deed on the pretext that the loan was to be repaid. The co-accused Ompati, in-connivance with the present petitioner, however, did not come forward for registration of sale deed and subsequently, the complainant came to know that the house which was to be purchased by him had been auctioned by the banker to some other person. By alleging that the petitioner with dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and to cheat him and for his own gain had induced the complainant to execute agreement to sell in favour of co-accused Ompati, he prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, present petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2024.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it was argued by his counsel that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact, the petitioner had no role in execution of any agreement to sell between the complainant and the co-accused. The co-accused Ompati had disclosed about the factum of the property owned by her lying mortgaged with the bank to the complainant at the time of execution of agreement to sell. It was the complainant who had sought extension of time for registration of sale deed. The co-accused was ready to execute sale deed in his favour. The petitioner was only an attesting witness to the agreement. There is no inducement on his part. He is ready to join the investigation. He is not beneficiary of the impugned amount of money. His custodial interrogation is not required. Therefore, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail.

4. Status report has been filed by respondent-State. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana assisted by learned counsel for the complainant argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner who is a property dealer by profession and who by hatching a conspiracy with the co-accused had induced him to part with a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the pretext of sale of the property owned by the co-accused Ompati by fully knowing that the said property was lying mortgaged and not free from encumbrances. An amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- had been received by the petitioner from the complainant. His custodial int