IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17^th September, 2025 Surendra Kumar Yadav and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Dheerja, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Himani Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Gaurav Jaglan, Advocate for the complainant.

(through V.C.)

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 548 dated 03.09.2023 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B and 34 of IPC at Police Station Sadar, Gurugram.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by complainant Savita Kumari, on the allegations that she had purchased a plot from M/s SKT Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter to be mentioned as ‘the company’) on 19.05.2018. The petitioner No.1 was director and 50% equity owner of the company, whereas the remaining equity ownership was in the name of accused Thawar Singh Yadav. The entire sale consideration amount was received by the builder company. The documents in the form of agreement, allotment letter, possession letter and indemnity bond had been given to the complainant. It was represented that the requisite certificate from Rera had also been issued qua the plot purchased by the complainant. However, subsequently, when the complainant visited the site of the allotted plot, she was shocked to see that there was neither any road access nor any electricity or water facility has been provided. The complainant made inquiries and came to know that the builder had mis-appropriated money from several public persons by making mis-representations. When the petitioners were confronted by the complainant, they offered to repurchase the plot from her. A cheque for a sum of Rs. 6,73,960/- was issued but the same was dishonored. Having been duped of her money, the complainant prayed for taking action.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners jointly moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide order dated

20.05.2025.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as the petitioner No.2 Kishori is concerned, he was neither a director of the company nor signatory to the agreement or the cheque issued to the complainant. He has been falsely roped into this case on the allegation that he was a benamidar, who entered into a joint venture with the company. There is no material on record to connect him with the allegations. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of pre-

arrest bail.

5. With regard to the petitioner No.1, it is argued that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature as the allegations even if accepted to be correct, constitute a case of breach of contract at the most, the remedy for which lies in civil law and not by way of prosecution. The case is based on documentary evidence. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. He is ready to join the investigation. Even otherwise, he is willing to settle the matter with the complainant by compensating her. Therefore, it is urged that he too deserves to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail.

6. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the petitioners got executed sale deed qua the plot in question in the name of the complainant and induced her to part with a sum of Rs. 4,34,669/- by representing that all the basic amenities would be provided for the purpose of building a house on the said plot. The petitioner No.1 had acted on behalf of