IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 08.01.2026 Surjeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Balkaran Singh Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

MANISHA BATRA, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 2- Ranjeet Singhin FIR No. 52 dated 07.06.2025, registered under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide orders dated 24.06.2025 and 02.07.2025, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the present petitioner alleging that accused Jasvir Kaur and Diljot Singh had entered into an agreement to sell their share in the land comprised in land measuring 16 kanals 18 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village Mehla, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. A written agreement was executed between them on 12.01.2023 and the petitioner/complainant agreed to purchase the land at the rate of Rs. 14,25,000/- per killa. He had given an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs in cash, Rs. 10 lakhs through cheque and had also agreed to sell his plot situated at Village Halimwala having a worth of Rs. 45 lakhs.The sale deed was to be executed on 30.05.2023. The complainant alleged that the above-named accused, in connivance with the co-accused and respondent No.2, fabricated a false girdawari entry showing accused Jasvir Kaur and Diljot Singh to be the owners of the subject property, whereas they were not so. Accused Lakhwinder Singh, who was having a power of attorney executed by accused Jasvir Kaur and Diljot Singh in his favour, had given his consent at the time of execution of the agreement.The complainant further alleged that now an agreement had been executed in favour of respondent No. 2. By alleging that he had been cheated by the accused persons, he prayed for taking action. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Respondent No. 2 was also nominated as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, he moved an application for anticipatory bail. Vide order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, he was directed to join the investigation, and thereafter vide order dated 02.07.2025, the order granting anticipatory bail was made absolute. Feeling aggrieved by the above- mentioned orders dated 24.06.2025 and 02.07.2025, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be cancelled as while extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2, the learned Sessions Judge ignored the fact that respondent No. 2 was not entitled to the said benefit. Material facts had been concealed. Respondent No. 2 got executed two sale deeds in favour of his wife and one Simranjit Kaur Gillin respect of the property in question on 04.02.2025 with intent to cheat the petitioner though he had pleaded before the concerned Court that he had no knowledge about the agreement to sell executed in favour of the petitioner, is act of getting the sale deeds executed in favour of his wife and the above- named Simranjit Kaur shows not only his knowledge but also his intention. He was in connivance with the co-accused and hence was not entitled to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the impugned orders whereby benefit of anticipatory bail was granted to respondent No. 2