(208) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 15.12.2025 LALIT CHHABRA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA (ORAL)

Present: Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG for the respondent-State Mr. Gursimran Singh Madaan, Advocate for the complainant ****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below :-

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

0089 02.05.2025 Civi Lines 318(4), 220 and Bathinda, District 61(2) of the Bathinda Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’)

2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant-Gaurav Kanauria seeking action against the present petitioner and the co-accused Dr. Ravleen Kaur and Amrish Vohra for committing fraud with the Government and himself, in connivance with each other. An inquiry was conducted and it was revealed that the Deputy Collector and competent authority of NSEL, Mumbai had conducted an online auction process of the properties and had assigned the task of conducting auction proceedings to one Quikr Realty Company (for short “the Company”). The complainant-Gaurav Kanauria had participated in the auction proceedings that had taken place on 25.10.2024 and had deposited security amount pertaining to nine properties. He was declared the highest bidder for seven properties. Certificate was issued by the Company in his favour. Qua the remaining two properties, he was declared second highest bidder. He had deposited the due consideration amount. The security money deposited qua remaining two properties had been returned back. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the co-accused Dr. Ravleen Kaur wife of the petitioner had failed to deposit the remaining consideration amount relating to the above-said two properties qua which she was declared highest bidder which led to forfeiture of earnest money deposited by her but in order to cause loss to the complainant, who was the second highest bidder, those two properties were re-auctioned in favour of the petitioner at a much lesser price thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.2,87,50,000/- to the Government exchequer and for wrongful gain of the petitioner and the co-accused.

3. As per the further allegations, the petitioner in connivance with his wife i.e. co-accused Dr. Ravleen Kaur and accused Amrish Vohra i.e. authorized person of the Company, had committed fraud with the complainant as well as with the Government. On the basis of the inquiry so conducted, the aforementioned FIR was registered. Investigation proceedings have been initiated. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 16.05.2025.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. On account of failure to deposit the remaining bid amount qua the two properties, the earnest money already deposited by the wife of the petitioner qua those properties was forfeited and the properties were made available for re-auction in the market. There was no provision for allocating those properties to the complainant on account of his being second highest bidder and that is why NSEL had notified the auction of properties and the petitioner had remained successful as a highest bidder in the said auction. It is argued that the dispute is totally of civil nature which has been given a criminal colour by the complainant feeling frustrated because of the fact that he could not succeed in his bid. No wrongful loss has been caused to the State Exchequer by him. The properties in question were situated w