IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Bhushan Mittal ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Date of decision: 02.02.2026 Date of Uploading : 02.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Rujhan Dhawan, 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 petitioner in case bearing FIR No.271 dated 30.10.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 351(2) and 61 of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula.

2. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner Bhushan Mittal, in active connivance with his wife Ritika (co-accused) and other associates, induced the complainant and his family members to invest huge amount of money on the pretext of purchase as also investment in multiple residential flats situated at Zirakpur and Peer Muchalla. The allegations reflect a systematic, continuous and well-orchestrated scheme of cheating wherein the petitioner executed and supplied forged agreements to sell, fabricated allotment letters, false possession letters and documents purportedly signed by the deceased persons thereby dishonestly misappropriating an amount of ₹

approximately 76.80 lakhs. It has been further alleged that the petitioner acted as the main conspirator of the fraud, handled all negotiations, collected money both in cash and through banking channels, impersonated the owners, arranged fake telephonic conversations and issued cheques which were later dishonoured. It has been further alleged that the complainant was also allegedly threatened with dire consequences on demanding the refund amount. On these allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the dispute, even if taken at its face value, arise out of commercial transactions and alleged breach of contractual obligations for which the complainant has an efficacious civil remedy. According to learned counsel, no ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS are made out as there is no allegation of dishonest or fraudulent inducement at the inception of the transactions. Learned counsel has emphasized that the FIR has been registered without territorial jurisdiction as all the properties in question are situated in Zirakpur and Peer Muchalla, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and the agreements to sell were also executed there and hence the Panch kula Police lacked the jurisdiction to register and investigate the present FIR. Furthermore, the entire case of the prosecution is based upon documentary evidence which is already in possession of the investigating agency. On the basis of parity, learned counsel has argued that co-accused Ritika, wife of the petitioner, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory by this Court and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. Furthermore, no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is neither required nor warranted. On strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner disclose a well planned fraud involving multiple transactions, forged documents and misappropriate of a huge amount of money. Learned State counsel has