IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14585-2026 Date of decision: 06.05.2026 TIRATH SHARMA ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate and Mr. Anil Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG Haryana.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.36 dated 22.02.2024 registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, 1860 at Police Station Hathin, District Palwal.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused, cheated the complainant and her husband for an amount of Rs.8 lakhs on the pretext of selling a property which was not in their name. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no connection with the alleged occurrence. He submits that as per the contents of the complaint there is a dispute regarding agreement to sell, which clearly shows that the dispute is civil in nature which has been given criminal color. He further submits that no transaction has been made into the account of the petitioner and it is in fact one Mahender Sharma who has received the entire amount. He submits that the petitioner has also given one application against the complainant-Hemlata but no action has been taken thereon by the police. He further submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence, hence, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays that present petition be allowed.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide order dated

06.03.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, he has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner in collusion with co-accused executed an agreement to sell in favour of the complainant and on that account the petitioner and co-accused received an amount of Rs.8 lakhs. He submits that the stamp paper was issued only when OTP was received on the mobile number belonging to the petitioner. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain the modus operandi and to recover the amount of Rs.8 lakhs as well as other documents. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The allegations levelled in the FIR reveal a well-planned act of forgery and fraud. The petitioner is alleged to have, in collusion with co-accused, executed an agreement to sell in favour of the complainant despite the fact that the property in ₹

question was not owned by him. It is further alleged that an amount of 8 lakhs was received on the basis of such misrepresentation. Further, the stamp paper used for the agreement was issued upon receipt of an OTP on a mobile number linked to the petitioner, which prima facie connects him to the transaction. At this stage, the