109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 20.02.2025 Pinderjeet Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Nitin Narula, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.84, dated 17.07.2024, registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Sultanwind, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was lodged by the complainants, namely, Gurpreet Kaur, Sarabjit Singh and Gurcharan Kaur. It was alleged that they were owner in possession of the land and got the boundary wall of the land and also got installed a gate. Avtar Singh in connivance with the officials of Revenue Department, Tehsildar, Halka Patwari, Kanugo by producing false witnesses i.e., Lambardar Satnam Singh, Narinder Singh and Manpreet Singh in the absence of the complainants by producing some unknown ladies, who impersonated them and got registered three sale deeds in order to harm them and for their wrongful gain. The sale deeds were alleged to be not original. Thus, request was made to cancel the sale deeds and fake Intqal and to take legal action against the culprits. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner was also found and hence, he was arrayed as an accused.

Apprehending arrest the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, for the grant of anticipatory bail. Learned Court after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, dismissed the same vide order dated 19.12.2024. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He submits that allegations against the petitioner that he was an attesting witness to the forged sale deed, are totally without any basis. He submits that alleged amount of Rs.40 lacs was taken by co-accused Avtar Singh and not by the petitioner. He submits that there is an unexplained delay of more than three years in registering the FIR, as the alleged occurrence had taken place on 28.02.2021, whereas, the FIR was registered on 17.07.2024. He submits that the dispute, if any between the parties is of civil nature, but in order to pressurize the petitioner, the same has been given colour of criminal nature. He, thus, submits that no prima facie case as alleged against the petitioner is made out and hence, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has also opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner has played a key role in the offence committed and it was alleged that the petitioner used to act as a property dealer to trap the innocent purchasers. He submits that he also received an amount of Rs.40 lacs as earnest money in conspiracy with the co-accused. He submits that the petitioner is also part of the conspiracy, wherein Gurcharan Kaur was impersonated by unknown woman and sale deed was executed. He submits that the investigation is at threshold and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner and co-accused is required for resolving the mystery. He, thus, submits that no case is made out for granting the anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as the same would prejudice the on going investigation.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the FIR in the present case was lodged on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainants. Specific grievance raised by the complainants that their land was sold