IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sonu ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Date of Decision: May 14, 2026 Date of Uploading: May 14, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Rai, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.

Mr. Gurjeet Singh, 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.037 dated 17.03.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Shahzadpur, District Ambala.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the complainant, namely, Ombir Singh Rana alleged cheating and misappropriation of an amount of Rs.15 lakh. It was averred that the accused persons, including the petitioner, had entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 128 kanals and 10 marlas, i.e. approximately 16.5 acres, for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,78,50,000/-. Pursuant thereto, the accused persons allegedly received earnest money amounting to Rs.15 lakh on 03.07.2024, and the date for execution of the sale deed was fixed for 03.12.2024. It was further alleged that the accused persons failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar on the stipulated date, whereupon the complainant marked his presence before the office of the Sub-Registrar and thereafter issued a legal notice to the accused persons. Despite the same, the accused persons allegedly did not appear before the Sub- Registrar even on 10.01.2025. According to the complainant, the accused persons subsequently backed out of the agreement to sell and started demanding consideration at the rate of Rs.31,50,000/- per acre instead of Rs.29 lakh per acre, as had allegedly been agreed earlier between the parties. Thereafter, another agreement was executed between the parties on 09.05.2025, under which the date fixed for execution of the sale deed was 16.05.2025. However, on the said date as well, the accused allegedly failed to appear before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shahzadpur. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the complainant alleged that he had been cheated by the accused, who had wrongfully retained and grabbed his amount of Rs.15 lakh.

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 petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the entire dispute is purely civil in nature; however, the complainant has given the same a criminal colour. Learned counsel has submitted that ingredients to invoke Section 318(4) of the BNS are completely absent as there is no allegation that the petitioner had any dishonest or fraudulent intention at the very inception of the transactions in respect of agreement to sell in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the earnest money was received as a part of sale consideration and was not entrusted to the petitioner for a specific purpose. It has been urged that the complainant has used the criminal justice system just to exert pressure on the petitioner for settling the civil dispute.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per