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

Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab.

*****

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.0173 dated 10.10.2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC at Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR reflects that the instant case was registered on a complaint made by the Estate Officer of the Punjab Wakf Board, Rajpura, Mohali against Ishwar Dayal Kamboj and Subhash Chand (petitioner herein). The complainant alleged that the property at Khasra No.62//21/3 measuring 3025 sq. yards in Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) belongs to the Punjab Wakf Board. The Punjab Wakf Board had leased this land to Jasmer Singh son of Kuldeep Singh, Rakesh Raj Purohit son of Jog Singh and Ishwar Dayal Kamboj for residential purposes for 35 months under lease order No.24/LU/614/20/5885 dated 26.02.2021. Rent was paid up to 31.07.2022 and the lease was valid up till 31.12.2023. However, Ishwar Dayal Kamboj and Subhash Chand (petitioner herein) sold the land without permission from the Punjab Wakf Board. It was alleged that since the property belongs to the Board, its sale is illegal under Section 52-A of the Wakf Act. The land of the Punjab Wakf Board can only be taken on lease and its sale/purchase is illegal and is considered as an offence of cheating. As per the complainant, the aforesaid accused had illegally tried to transfer the land of the Punjab Wakf Board. On these set of allegations, the instant FIR has been registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has no connection with the property in question and has been wrongly dragged into the instant case. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is, in fact, a victim of fraud and was misled and induced by Ashraf Khan, Alim Khan and Jasmer Singh. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has not received any wrongful gain from the alleged transaction and was never a beneficiary, vendor or purchaser of the disputed land. It has been further argued that the petitioner has clear antecedents and is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance notice) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, the involvement of the petitioner, even as a signatory or witness to the documents, cannot be ignored lightly, as such participation of the petitioner may have facilitated the illegal sale of the Wakf Board property. Learned State counsel has iterated that the instant matter involves serious allegations under Section 52-A of the Wakf Act, including the illegal sale of the land belonging to a trust which is a matter of public interest. Learned State counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has the knowledge of the transactions and parties involved and his custodial interrogation may be necessary to assist in the investigation and ensure the recovery of documents or evidence. Furthermore, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, at this stage, it may impede the ongoing investigation. Accordingly, a p