S. No.101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRM-M-51486 of 2025 Date of Decision:15.09.2025 Rajeev Kaushik .....Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. V.P. Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0280 dated 21.08.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC at Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, District Dabwali.

2. The present case was registered on the basis of complaint given to the Police by Vikramjeet Singh with the allegations that Rajeev Kaushik, Advocate is an Itmam/ Manager of Mandir Kaladhari Murti Thakurdas Ji, which owns 59 kanals 04 marlas of land and said Rajeev Kaushik executed an agreement to sell the land in his favour vide agreement dated 18.12.2023 for a total consideration of Rs.92,44,000/- and the amount was transferred in the personal account of Rajeev Kaushik. Said Rajeev Kaushik also paid some amounts to the tenants, who were in possession of the said land and obtained their affidavits and got the khasra girdawari entries corrected in his favour. However, thereafter, he kept on delaying the execution of the sale deed and later on, he enquired and came to know that Rajeev Kaushik is not the owner of the land and he has got no authority to execute the sale deed and said Rajeev Kaushik thus cheated him and obtained the sale consideration amount in his own personal account and he sought action against him.

3. Upon notice, learned State Counsel as well as counsel for the complainant have appeared and power of attorney has been filed on behalf of the complainant and the same is taken on record. Both the parties have been heard and the material placed on file has been perused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He never misled the complainant or induced him to deliver any money. No false representation was made and even in the agreement, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner is Itmam/ Manager of the said temple and complainant knew from the very beginning that he is not the owner and despite that, he had agreed to purchase the land and no offence under Section 420 IPC is thus made out. Petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and he may be released on anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail and argued that the petitioner had made a false representation at the time of execution of the agreement that there is no hindrance in sale of the land and he has been authorised to sell the land and enter into an agreement for extension of the temple but he did not have any such authority and he induced the complainant to deliver him huge sum of Rs.92,44,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement and thereafter, he did not execute the sale deed. Learned counsel contended that the sale consideration was also got deposited in his own personal account by the accused which shows his fraudulent intention from the very beginning and his custodial interrogation is essential and in view of gravity of offence, he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.

6. In the agreement to sell, which has been placed on file, there is a specific recital that petitioner is an Itmam/ Manager of the temple and there is no legal impediment in the sale of the land but it has also been mentioned that the petitioner has got the authority to sell the entire land owned by the temple for extension of the temple and thereafter, he executed the agreement and got transferred a sum of Rs.92,44,000/- in his personal account instead of getting the same transferred in the account of the te