IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

215 *****

CRM-M No.54135 of 2023 Date of decision : 8.7.2025 Rajendra Kumar @ Rajinder Kumar Nagar ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Kulwinder Bhargav, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab Mr. Puneet Kapoor, Advocate and Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate, for the complainant ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.47 dated 22.08.2023, under Sections 406, 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station PS Handesra, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2. On 25.10.2023, the following order was passed:

‘The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0047 dated 22.08.2023,under Sections 406, 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Handesra, District SAS Nagar Mohali. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute revolves around between the parties is with regard to the purchase of land for a consideration and one of the parties to the said agreement has not performed its part and dispute arose on account of not paying the money by the complainant and not executing the agreement to get it registered with the accused persons. He asserts that the petitioner is in fact was not connected to the said land belonging to the complainant, but has been nominated as an accused merely for being in close relative with the other accused person.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the order dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed in CRM-M-46250-2023 by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide which the co-accused namely Onkar Chand has been granted the concession of interim protection recording the fact that the civil suit between the parties is already pending before the Court of Shri Chetesh Gupta, Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Chandigarh.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of Court, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State, who on instructions from ASI Jatinder Pal submits that the case of the petitioner is not at par with the co-accused Onkar Chand, but could not deny the fact that the dispute is the same.

Mr. Puneet Kapoor and Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocates have put in appearance on behalf of complainant and vehemently opposes the concession of anticipatory bail on account of the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who is involved in various other FIRs of same nature, as has been detailed hereinbelow:-

1. FIR No.220 dated 17.06.2021, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala.

2. FIR No.173 dated 21.06.2021, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala.

3. FIR No.257 dated 26.08.2021, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala.

4. FIR No.5 dated 05.01.2022, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Saha, District Ambala.

5. FIR No.38 dated 13.01.2022, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Sohana, SAS Nagar Mohali.

6. FIR No.240 dated 14.08.2019, under Sections 328, 392 of IPC, registered at Police Station Meerut, District Meerut (Uttar Pradesh).

7. FIR No.49 of 1993, registered at Police Station R.K. Puram New Delhi. Learned counsel for the complainant on the strength of above urges that the petitioner has not approached before this Court with clean hands, as non- bailable warrants stand issued against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner counters the aforesaid submissions stating that the non-bailable warrants have not been issued in the instant FIR, but in another FIR bearing No. 5 dated 05.01.2022.

Be that as it may, since the dispute between the parties is prima facie of the civi