IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.11.2025 Kulwinder Singh and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Tahaf Bains, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.158 dated 19.10.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

2. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by complainant namely Kulwant Singh, son of Surmukh Singh, resident of Village Dhyanpura, Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar against Jagdish Ram, son of Mewa Ram, resident of Village Kulheri, Police Station Morinda, District Rupnagar, and his unknown accomplices. He alleged that he intended to purchase a piece of land and in this regard he came in contact with one Baljit Singh who showed him a piece of land belonging to Gurmail Singh, Narinder Singh, Avtar Singh, and Nirmal Singh, all sons of Prem Singh son of Karam Singh, situated at Village Asgaripur, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. On 23.08.2024, the complainant executed an agreement to sell with the said individuals. It has been further alleged by the complainant that the said Baljit Singh along with four unidentified persons ₹ ₹

deceived him into paying them a total of 90,00,000 (i.e. 10,00,000 ₹

through cheque withdrawn at HDFC Bank, Kurali and 80,00,000 in cash). Subsequently, when the complainant visited village Asgaripur, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana to verify the ownership details of the property in question, he discovered that the actual owners of the said land are currently residing in Canada and that the accused persons had prepared forged documents to cheat him. Furthermore, the villagers informed the complainant that Avtar Singh, one of the actual owners had passed away in the year 1992 and the accused had prepared fake documents in his name. On these set of allegations, the instant FIR was registered and investigation ensued. During the course of investigation the name of the petitioners surfaced on the disclosure statement of co-accused Jagdish Kumar. He alleged that the persons who had impersonated the original owners were arranged by the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the FIR in question at the instance of co-accused Jagdish Kumar (who impersonated himself as Baljit Singh), whose disclosure statement is the only basis for naming the petitioners. Learned counsel has further iterated that the said disclosure is vague and devoid of any specific details and has been made with mala fide intention due to prior enmity between the petitioners and the said co-

accused. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners have earlier filed two police complaints against the said co-accused Jagdish Kumar before the SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib and even the maternal uncle of petitioner No.1 against the co-accused Jagdish Kumar for a similar act of cheating. Learned counsel has further submitted that neither the complainant has not named the petitioners in the FIR nor did he allege payment of any amount to them. Furthermore, the agreement to sell was executed only between the complainant and Baljit Singh (actual name Jagdish Kumar). According to learned counsel, the petitioners are not signatories to any document and have not received any consideration from the complainant. From the bare perusal of the present FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners. A bare reading of the FIR disclos