IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.220 Decided On : November 10, 2025 Kulwinder Singh Brar @ Mintu .... Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * *

Present : Mr. K. B. S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate for the complainant.

* * *

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J . :

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.270 dated 22.07.2025, under Sections 420, 467. 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of complaint moved by complainant Inderjit Singh Sandhu, wherein he stated that the petitioner was son of his real aunt (Bua) and other two persons namely Ranjit Singh Dhillon and his father Bachan Singh Dhillon were known to the petitioner. In 2018, all three started visiting his house and allured the complainant and his wife to purchase 20 acres of land in Village Dona Matter, near Mamdot, as they were having good links with political and revenue authorities. For this transaction, the petitioner took Rs.20 lacs from the complainant on different occasions. When he demanded some proof in lieu of getting the land in his name i.e. jamabandi etc., he was handed over a girdawari. On verification, the complainant found that the said girdawari was bogus and was prepared by a Patwari namely Dhanjit Singh, who had already expired. In fact, there was no record of this document in the official site of Punjab Government. Faced with this situation, the complainant requested the petitioner a number of times to return his money, but in vain. Hence, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner for committing criminal breach of trust, forgery and fraud.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is delay of seven years in lodging the complaint. There is no proof of handing over the alleged amount of Rs.20 lacs to the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that rather the petitioner himself was a victim and aforesaid Ranjit Singh Dhillon and Bachan Singh Dhillon were the master minds of the crime. The petitioner himself had given Rs.23 lacs to these persons. He urged that it was the petitioner, who was allured by the complainant for purchasing land in Village Gatti Tellu Mall Meh Tukda, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, but when the deal was not materialized, the present false case had been registered against the petitioner. Therefore, he urged that the petitioner is not required for any interrogation and no recovery is to be effected from him. He has, therefore, prayed that let the petitioner be granted concession of anticipatory bail.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present bail petition and contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious as he allegedly allured the complainant to purchase the land measuring 20 acres. He gave forged and fabricated revenue record to the complainant and received Rs.20 lacs from him, which are yet to be recovered. So, his custodial interrogation is required and he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.

Heard.

The petitioner and complainant are related to each other. The petitioner is cousin of complainant. The allegations qua forging of revenue documents are not pertaining to the petitioner. It was allegedly prepared by Patwari namely Dhanjit Singh, who had already expired. There is delay of seven years in lodging of the present FIR, as the amount was allegedly given in the year 2018 and the complaint had been filed in June 2025. As per the petitioner, he himself is also a victim and had also given money to get girdawari of the remaining land from Patwari Dhanjit Singh. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents