IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of Decision: February 10, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 10, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Vatsal Raj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

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.705 dated 25.10.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS Act, 2023, at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, District Panipat.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant, namely, Sunil Chandna, moved a complaint alleging that co-accused, namely, Jai Singh son of Tek Ram, represented that he was willing to sell his house bearing No.952, ad-measuring 138.6 square meters, situated in Sector ₹

11-12, Part-II, Panipat, for a total sale consideration of 1,50,00,000. The complainant agreed to purchase the said property. At the time of negotiations, Jai Singh disclosed that the property was free from all encumbrances. Relying upon this representation, the complainant entered into an agreement to sell dated 20.12.2024 with Jai Singh and paid a sum of ₹

25,00,000 through two RTGS transactions in the bank account of co-

accused, namely, Monu, wife of Ashok Kumar (petitioner herein). The ₹

complainant further agreed to pay an additional amount of 63,00,000 on

27.12.2024.

However, on 27.12.2024, when the complainant visited the residence of Jai Singh, he was asked to come to the Tehsil, Panipat, for completion of the transaction and payment of the remaining amount. Thereafter, the complainant, along with Mukesh Kumar, Sita Ram and Sunil son of Jagdish Lal, reached Tehsil, Panipat, and waited for the accused. At about 3:30 PM, Jai Singh arrived and informed the complainant that he ₹

would now sell the property for 2,00,00,000 and demanded payment of ₹

1,13,00,000 on the same day, failing which the complainant would neither be sold the property nor refunded the amount already paid by him.

Upon making further inquiries, the complainant discovered that the said house had already been mortgaged with ICICI Home Finance as security against a loan obtained by co-accused – Monu, wife of Ashok Kumar (petitioner herein), and that Jai Singh did not possess the legal authority to sell the said property. The complainant alleged that Jai Singh, Monu, Ashok Kumar (petitioner herein) and Harish, grandson of Jai Singh, had conspired together to cheat him and fraudulently executed the agreement dated 20.12.2024. The complainant further alleged that when he visited the house in question along with witnesses and demanded return of his money, the accused persons threatened to kill him and also threatened to falsely implicate him in a case under the SC/ST Act. Based on these set of allegations, the instant FIR was duly registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature, but the complainant has given the same a criminal colour. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner neither the purchaser nor is the beneficiary (though only a signatory witness to the alleged agreement to sell). Learned counsel has further iterated that even the civil suit qua property in question is already pending, in the Civil Courts at Panipat, between the complainant and co-accused, namely, Jai Singh. Learned counsel has further argued that no allegation of demanding any money has been raised against the petitioner and, thus, the petitioner has been falsely implicated into th