215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.09.2025 PARAMJEET KAUR ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate and Mr. Sohailbeer Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate for the complainant.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

51 23.04.2025 City Rampura, District 318(4)/343/61(2)(a) of Bathinda BNS, 2023

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Per paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

“5. That the brief facts of the case are as under: i. That the present FIR came to be registered on the basis of a complaint dated 04.02.2025 moved by complainant Sanjiv Kumar son of Rajinder Kumar to SSP, Bathinda against Tirath Singh son of Kulwinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur wife of Kulwinder Singh and against another unknown lady and other unknown persons, containing allegations to the effect that Tirath Singh and Rupinder Singh alias Raibinder Singh had entered into an agreement to sell with him qua sale of 65 Kanals land of theirs @ Rs.35,60,000/- per acre on 28.09.2024. A sum of Rs.57,00,000/- was paid as earnest money by him. As per the said agreement, another sum of Rs.12 lacs was to be paid by the complainant on 01.12.2024. However, two cheques of the said amount were taken from him by Kulwinder Singh on 30.01.2025 vide a separate writing which was signed by him, but the date mentioned on the said cheques was 01.12.2024 at the instance of vendors.

Renu Bala The said writing even bore the signature of Tirath Singh. The said persons told them that they need a photocopy of said new writing and when they were getting the said document photocopied at Bharat Photostat at Rampura Phul, at that time Tirath Singh took the said writing from him and tore the same. Somehow they snatched half of the said writing pertaining to the agreement to sell from him and the remaining half of the said document was put by Paramjit Kaur wife of Kulwinder Singh in her clothes. They are also having a video recording of the said occurrence. At that time, one unknown lady and some unknown persons were also present at the spot. The said act was committed by the said persons in order to resile from the agreement to sell. The date of execution of the sale deed was fixed to be 20.05.2025 in the said agreement. The complainant prayed that action may be taken against the said persons. The said complaint was marked by SSP Bathinda to DSP, Rampura Phul for inquiry and on the basis of said inquiry report and legal opinion obtained from DDA Legal vide letter number 81/DDA Legal, District Bathinda dated 17/04/2025 the present FIR was lodged and the investigation of the case was commenced.”

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a women and she has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. There has been a considerable delay in registration of FIR. He further submits that bail filed by two co-accused, namely, Rupinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh to whom even the main act of tearing of the agreement was attributed, there bail has been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, however, petitioner’s role is on lower pedestrian.

5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

7. Counsel for the complainant strongly oppose the bail and submits that if this Court grants bail to the petitioner, that should be subject to the condition that co-accused with