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

251-2 CRM-M-1973-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.02.2026 Gurpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Santpal Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepdaman Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 183 dated 01.08.2025, registered under Sections 316(2) and

318(4) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by complainant Amit Luthra on 01.08.2025 alleging therein that the petitioner was a partner of M/s Lovely Group and that the said firm had started a project for selling properties at Rajpura. The complainant applied for an industrial plot under the said project and the petitioner agreed to sell an industrial plot measuring 150 square yards to the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.46,50,000/-. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner received an amount of Rs.11,65,500/-, which was 25% of the total sale consideration. It is further alleged that the petitioner also agreed to sell another plot to the wife and mother-in-law of the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.36,00,000/- and received Rs.9,00,000/- as earnest money, being 25% of the sale consideration. The petitioner showed the complainant CLU, site plan and other relevant documents and thereafter received the payment in the name of M/s Lovely Promoters and Builders, while assuring the complainant that the project would be completed shortly and an allotment letter would be issued. It was also informed that the remaining amount would be payable in three instalments. However, despite repeated visits by the complainant, neither any industrial plot was allotted nor any allotment letter was issued in favour of the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner neither returned the amount of Rs.20,62,500/- received from the complainant nor provided any plot as promised. Therefore, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 28.10.2025. Investigation now stands completed and challan has been filed.

3. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The dispute in question is purely civil in nature, arising out of an alleged failure to perform contractual obligations. However, with the sole intention of recovering the invested amount, the complainant has given a criminal colour to a civil dispute by lodging the present FIR. The amount in question was deposited by the complainant as an investment, for which the petitioner had issued a letter evidencing Expression of Interest (EOI) and not as part of any fraudulent transaction. It is further submitted that the petitioner had applied for Change of Land Use (CLU) on 17.01.2023 with respect to 32.32 acres of land for the proposed project and had obtained several No Objection Certificates from various government departments, which clearly demonstrates his bona fides. The delay in issuance of CLU occurred due to disputes with his partner, Rahul Trehan, and objections raised by the government authorities, coupled with the fact that the project involved a large tract of land. Legal proceedings also ensued, including filing of a civil suit wherein, a stay order was passed by the Civil Court, which further contributed to the delay and was beyond the control of the petitioner.

4. It is further argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had no dishonest