IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Yash Pal Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of decision: 07.05.2026 Date of Uploading : 07.05.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.

Mr. Najar Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.187 dated 11.07.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala.

2. As per the prosecution case, complainant Sanjeev Kumar, who is stated to be engaged in the power sector business at Faridabad has alleged that about one year prior to registration of the FIR, he came in contact with co-accused Brahm Prakash, a property dealer, who represented that he could facilitate purchase of land situated near Grain Market, Mohra, Ambala. It has been alleged that Brahm Prakash introduced the complainant to the Yash Pal (petitioner herein) and one Patwari namely Parveen Kumar. As per the complainant, he was allegedly shown certain agreements and documents relating to the proposed land transaction and was assured that the agreement to sell would be executed within one week. Relying upon such assurances/representations, the complainant allegedly paid an amount of Rs.35 lakhs to the present petitioner and Rs.12 lakhs to co-accused Brahm Prakash in the presence of Patwari Parveen Kumar. Despite receipt of the said amount, neither any agreement to sell was executed nor the money was returned. Thereafter the accused persons stopped responding to the calls of the complainant. Based on these set of allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner, a retired police official aged about 66 years, has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the allegations contained in the FIR arise out of a land transaction and the entire dispute is purely civil in nature for which the complainant has appropriate remedy(s) before the competent civil Court by way of recovery proceedings or specific performance. It has been further contended that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of more than one year in the registration of the FIR inasmuch as the alleged transaction pertains to June 2024 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 11.07.2025 which renders the prosecution story highly doubtful and an afterthought. It has been further ₹

contended that the complainant himself alleges payment of 47.00 lacs in cash and no material has been placed on record to establish the source of such amount. Furthermore, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are not made out against the petitioner, as there was neither any dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction nor any entrustment of property so as to constitute criminal breach of trust. Learned counsel has emphasized that the complainant, in connivance with local police officials, has allegedly abducted the petitioner on 06.01.2026 and forcibly procured an affidavit and a post-dated cheque of ₹

31.00 lacs under threat and coercion, which itself demonstrates the mala fide intention of the complainant and his attempt to misuse the criminal process. It has been further contended that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen; has clean antecedents; is ready and willing to join investigation as and when required. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Referring to reply dated 20.04.2026 by way of an affidavit of Virender, HPS