IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:05.02.2026 Harbhajan Kaur ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, hereinafter being referred as ‘IPC’ only, the FIR No.151 dated 09.10.2018, has been lodged in Police Station Dand, District Kurukshetra. In the above mentioned case, the petitioner is apprehending arrest, and therefore, for the benefit of anticipatory bail she has approached this Court, by virtue of present petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNSS’ only.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Mukesh Rani’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above named complainant that the petitioner and her co-accused had entered into an agreement to sale of their agricultural land, and that at the time of deal it was told to her that the property was free from all encumbrances, but later on it was found that there was bank loan and the above mentioned property was already mortgaged at the time of sale. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, despite receipt of huge amount as advance money the petitioner and her co- accused have not executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant, and thus, she has been subjected to fraud.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above mentioned complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, appears on behalf of respondent-State, and waives service.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner is innocent, and that this is the second petition for anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the first petition moved by the petitioner was withdrawn at the time of hearing of that petition, it was reported by the prosecution that the petitioner has been found innocent. As per learned counsel for the petitioner subsequently, during the course of trial by invoking jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has been summoned as an accused. Hence, the second petition for anticipatory bail.

8. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that false allegations have been levelled in the complaint, that the land which was subject matter of agreement to sell was mortgaged by the petitioner or other co-accused. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, the other piece of land was mortgaged but the complainant due to some misunderstanding submitted complaint before the police alleging therein that the land which was subject matter of the agreement to sell by the petitioner (through General Power of Attorney) was under mortgaged. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who was not initially prosecuted is an old aged lady, and that nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner.

9. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature and she does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail.

10. The record has been perused carefully.

11. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner during the course of investigation was found to be innocent, and that she was never arrested. The petitioner has been subsequently summoned as an additional accused. The above mentioned factual matrix