IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ashish Gupta ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of decision: 16.04.2026 Date of Uploading : 16.04.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jaiveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Sections 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.0147 dated 05.06.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 238 of BNS at Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad.

2. The allegations in the FIR, as set-out in the petition, arise from a complaint made by complainant namely Jatinder Singh Arora, who asserted that he was the lawful owner of Apartment No.A-2102, 21^st Floor, Tower A, Ibiza Town, Sector 39 Surajkund Road, Faridabad. It has been alleged that the said property was fraudulently transferred by way of a forged sale-deed dated 07.08.2024 in favour of co-accused Gunjan Saxena by impersonating the complainant. The complainant had categorically denied the execution of the said sale-deed and receipt of any consideration.

As per the complainant, the sale-deed dated 07.08.2024 was executed and registered by fraudulently impersonating him. Furthermore, the complainant has alleged that Karamvir and Chander Shekhar Bainsla had prepared a forged and fabricated rent agreement in respect of the disputed property. In connection with the said forged rent agreement, FIR No.317 dated 18.05.2024 under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC was registered against Karamvir and Chander Shekhar Bainsla. Accused Karamvir had filed a civil suit in District Court, Faridabad. A settlement in the civil suit took place on 01.04.2025, pursuant to which Karamvir and Chander Shekhar Bainsla had handed-over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant on 01.04.2025. The complainant has further alleged that he was not in possession of the disputed property on 07.08.2024. According to the complainant, accused Karamvir, in collusion with Gunjan Saxena and others, had prepared the forged sale-deed bearing Vasika No.3416 dated 07.08.2024. The complainant had also came to know that accused Gunjan Saxena had obtained a loan on the disputed property on the basis of the said forged and fabricated sale-deed. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and the investigation ensued.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as he is neither named in the FIR nor is the beneficiary of the alleged forged sale- deed. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the implication of the petitioner is solely on the basis of disclosure statement(s) made by co- accused persons during police custody which have no evidentiary value in law. It has been further contended that no material has been placed on record which shows any agreement constituting criminal conspiracy.

According to learned senior counsel, the alleged financial transactions, which has been relied upon by the prosecution, are the genuine business dealings much prior to the disputed sale-deed. It has been further argued that the name of the petitioner has been falsely roped into the instant case without any supporting evidence or proper investigation. Moreover, the original sale-deed, if any, is already in possession of the office of Sub- Registrar and cannot be recovered from the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has emphasized that the petitioner has already joined the investigation on multiple occasions and has cooperated with the investigating agency & thus, there is no need for his custodial interrogation. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the pro