IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.10.2025 Raj Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab.

Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.225 dated 08.08.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120-B of the IPC at Police Station Civil Lines Bathinda, District Bathinda.

2. The gravamen of the FIR reflects that the instant case was registered based on a complaint made by Ram Saroop, who stated that he and his three associates namely Kabir Singh, Gurpiar Singh and Sarabjit Kaur agreed on 06.03.2023 to purchase 08 acres of land from Ranjit Singh for Rs.24,25,000/- per acre. The land appeared to be free from any legal issues as per the revenue record and they paid Rs.56,72,000/- as earnest money in three installments. The sale-deed was to be executed on 21.01.2024. In August 2023, when Ram Saroop (complainant) asked Ranjit Singh to execute the sale-deed, it was found that a Court stay order was there in the latest Jamabandi in favour of one Angrej Kaur. When the accused Ranjit Singh was questioned, he assured the complainant and his three associates that he would have the entry (Rapat) removed but later several more Rapats appeared in the record in favour of other people. Complainant namely Ram Saroop alleged that the accused namely Ranjit Singh, in collusion with his partners, extended the sale deadline twice without their consent. On the scheduled date, the complainant marked his presence at Sub Tehsil Doda. Later, they filed a complaint with the SSP Bathinda which was sent to the Economic Offences Wing. During the inquiry, Ranjit Singh promised before the police to return the earnest money as he intended to sell the land to another buyer namely Baldev Singh. Based on this assurance, the complainant withdrew his application. However, even after a month, the accused Ranjit Singh did not return the money. He falsely claimed before the Panchayat that he had received $2,25,000/- from his daughter in Canada and showed a fake screenshot to support his claim. Later, the complainant came to know that such a huge amount cannot be received from a foreign country. The complainant also alleged that the accused namely Ranjit Singh returned money to his partners with interest from the earnest money but did not play his share as he was away at that time. Despite repeated assurances, the accused Ranjit Singh neither paid the remaining amount nor executed the sale-deed. After inquiry by DSP City-I, Bathinda, and legal opinion from the District Attorney, it was recommended to register an FIR against Ranjit Singh and Raj Singh an attesting witness (petitioner herein) under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC.

Consequently, the FIR was formally registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has further iterated that the present case does not disclose any offence of fraud and cheating against the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he acted as an attesting witness to certain agreements to sell executed by co-accused Ranjit Singh with different persons. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner is neither the executants nor the beneficiary of the alleged transactions. According to learned counsel, a bare perusal of FIR shows that at the time of execution of the agreements, the land in question was free from encumbrances as reflected in the revenue records. The alleged dispute arose subsequently when a stay order in favour of one Agrej Kaur surfaced in the jamabandi and hence there is no basis to