IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209-2 CRM-M-56848-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 15.12.2025 Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Eklavya Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Abnash Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 76 dated 27.03.2025, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant Amarpreet Singh alleging therein that he was interested in buying a house in SAS Nagar (Mohali). The petitioner, who is a resident of Mohali, was contacted. He represented to the complainant that one Amardeep Singh @ Nippy owned a house and thereafter introduced him to accused Amardeep Singh, who met the complainant in the presence of the Manjeet Kaur (petitioner’s wife) as well as Harpreet Kaur, wife of Amardeep Singh. All of them represented to the complainant that one Maan Singh, who owned a house in Sector 86, Mohali, and his daughter-in-law Harwinder Kaur, were interested in selling the said house. The petitioner and the co-accused made the complainant talk to the abovesaid Harwinder Kaur, who told him to go ahead with the bargain and pay earnest money to Amardeep Singh, assuring that her father-in-law would execute the sale deed in his favour. Believing all of them, the complainant entered into an agreement to sell on 21.02.2024. The agreement was signed by accused Amardeep Singh as vendor, while petitioner Rajinder Singh stood as an attesting witness to the same. An amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to co-accused Manjeet Kaur and Harpreet Kaur as commission in equal shares. Subsequently, on the asking of the petitioner and co-accused Amardeep Singh, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 11.03.2024; Rs. 30,00,000/- on 16.03.2024; Rs. 2,00,000/- on 01.04.2024 and Rs. 6,00,000/- on 03.04.2024 in cash to them. However, no sale deed was executed in his favour and the petitioner and the co-accused started putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and thereafter extended threats to him. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, vide order dated 07.05.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was merely a mediator of a property deal which was struck between the complainant and accused Amardeep Singh qua purchase of a house in Sector 86, S.A.S. Nagar. He stood only as an attesting witness to the said agreement and had no other role to play in any transaction or receipt of money. The co-accused Amardeep Singh and the complainant subsequently resiled from the said agreement with their mutual consent. A compromise was also effected between them and, as per the terms thereof, accused Amardeep Singh has already returned an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the complainant. The ingredients for commission of the offence of cheating are not attracted against the petitioner. No transaction of money took place in the bank account of the petitioner. The dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature, which has been given a criminal colour. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required and no recovery is to be effected from him. It is thus urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel