IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 Vikram Singh …Petitioner.

Versus State of Punjab …Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.

Present: Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gautam Thapar, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate with Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Sukhkamal Walia, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No. 101 dated 8.9.2024, under Sections 420, 406 of Indian Penal Code, registered against him at Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur, has filed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. In brief, the allegation against petitioner is that complainant, who wanted to set up a pesticide factory, was introduced to petitioner by one Ram Niwas. Petitioner promised to arrange loan and asked for certain documents. After the documents were supplied in November, 2021, it is alleged that petitioner informed that loan of Rs.26 crores has been approved and demanded his commission of about Rs.60 lakhs. Complainant alleges that Rs.35 lakhs was given to petitioner and his father on 18.11.2021. However, the loan was not processed. Initially, he (P) made certain excuses. However, later, on account of intervention made by the respectable and friends, petitioner admitted to his fault and agreed to pay Rs.24 lakhs in three installments of Rs.8 lakhs each. The first installment was to be paid in cash along with which two cheques of Rs.8 lakhs each were to be handed over. It is further the allegation of complainant that the cheques issued by petitioner were presented to the bank thrice and on each of such occasion, these were dishonoured due to “insufficient funds”. Though, Rs.1,15,000/- was deposited in the account of complainant. However, the remaining amount has not been paid. Thus, in nutshell, the allegation is that petitioner and his father, who initially promised to facilitate the grant of loan and took Rs.35 lakhs from him, did not do the needful and even after settling the dispute for Rs.24 lakhs, they did not pay the agreed/settled amount as also that the cheques issued by them were dishonoured. On the basis of said complaint, a formal case vide FIR No. 101 dated 8.9.2024, under Sections 420, 406 of Indian Penal Code, was registered against him at Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur.

During the course of investigation, complainant handed over a copy of the compromise deed dated 6.2.2024 entered into between him and petitioner, along with copies of cheque No. 894547 amounting to Rs.8 lakhs and cheque No.894548 amounting to Rs.4 lakhs. These documents were taken into possession.

Apprehending his arrest, petitioner moved an application for pre-arrest bail and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide order dated 21.8.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, a property dealer, has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, complainant and his other associates including Suraj Kumar and Ram Niwas often used to visit his office. A property related transaction had occurred between complainant and petitioner but different colour has been given to the incident only with a view to harass petitioner as also to extract illegal monetary benefit from him. Allegation levelled against petitioner that he had assured complainant to secure a loan of Rs.6 crores for the purpose of setting up pesticide factory is totally frivolous, for neither petitioner is banker nor he has any relation with the bank employee. Thus, the question of him facilitating loan for complainant does not arise, who otherwise has also failed to establish/place on record, any document indicating his financial capacity and expertise to set up a pesticide factory. The fact that complainant alleged that Rs.35 lakhs was paid by him in cash as also that complaint has been lodged after unexplained delay of 3 years clearly suggests false implicatio