IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:07.07.2025 Narbir Singh Hudda ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Present: Mr. Arun Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.394 dated 16.10.2024, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, at Police Station City Sohna, District Gurugram.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the present FIR had been registered on the complaint of Manoj, in which it was alleged that on the basis of forged and fabricated GPA, the accused persons, in conspiracy with each other, have got executed sale deed of the land bearing No.74, Killa No.7 (8-0) and 14 (8-0) of village Sohna, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurugram vide Vasika No.863 dated 23.04.2024. It was further alleged that Civil Suit No.173/2021 titled as “Jay Prakash vs. Manohar” was also pending before the Civil Court at Sohna wherein the stay has been granted qua this land. On enquiry, the complainant found that a sale deed was fabricated while referring to GPA No.929 dated 20.04.2024 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Dehradun in favour of Nitin regarding the land in dispute. It was alleged by the complainant that he knew nothing about Nitin in whose favour the GPA was executed. Having been found himself cheated, the request was made to take legal action against the culprits involved. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and during investigation, the complicity of the petitioner was prima facie surfaced and, thus, he was arrayed as an accused. Apprehending arrest, he approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram for grant of concession of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was declined to him vide order dated 30.04.2025. Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the case is entirely of civil nature which has been given the colour of criminal nature only in order to harass the petitioner. It is submitted that from the reading of the allegations, no case for cheating is made out against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has not been alleged to have forged the documents and, thus, the offence of cheating could not be made out against him. It is submitted that after registration of the present FIR, another FIR No.434 dated 13.11.2024 was registered on the complaint of Subhash Rathi, who had alleged that the applicant along with co-accused persons, namely, Nitin etc., have cheated him by selling him the land on the basis of forged and fabricated GPA. It is submitted that from the reply filed by the State, false implication of the petitioner is writ large. He further submitted that co-accused Subhash Rathi, in order to save himself in the present FIR, has concocted a baseless story, which is evident from FIR No.434 dated 13.11.2024. It is further submitted that the investigation agencies have not verified source of the huge amount of Rs.80 lacs in possession of Subhash Rathi and mere presence of the petitioner in Dehradun is not sufficient to prove the baseless allegations levelled against him. He further submits that the petitioner has been made an escape goat and no prima facie case is made out against him and, thus, he deserves concession of anticipatory bail on this ground.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application and has drawn attention of this Court to the status report filed by way of affidavit of Abhimanyu Lohan, HPS, ACP, EOW, Haryana. It has been submitted that the matter is