IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

206 CRM-M-37947-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 17.04.2026 Parmod Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Prateek Garg, Advocate and Ms. Anita Kumari, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

*****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No. 2 and 3, namely Sunita Bansal and Madan Lal Bansal, in FIR No. 122 dated 21.03.2023, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Urban Estate, Hisar, vide order dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P- 14, whereby they were granted interim bail and then vide order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P-16), the interim bail, granted to them, was made absolute by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the petitioner/complainant Parmod Kumar alleging that respondents No. 2 and 3 were having two shops abutting the shop of the petitioner. They represented to the petitioner that those shops were free from all encumbrances and were owned by respondent No. 2-Sunita Bansal. They also told the petitioner that they were interested to sell those shops due to some personal exigencies. They induced the petitioner to purchase the same. A written agreement was executed by them for a sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- for sale of those shops on 31.10.2018. The sale deed was to be executed and registered on 30.04.2019. Before that date, the respondents No. 2 and 3 had taken an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the petitioner. However, the sale deed was not executed within stipulated period. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that those shops were lying mortgaged with bank and someone had purchased the same from the bank. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The respondents No. 2 and 3 moved a joint application for grant of anticipatory bail. Vide order dated 17.06.2025, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar directed the respondents No. 2 and 3 to join the investigation and extended benefit of interim bail to them. Then, vide order dated 25.06.2025, the order of interim bail was made absolute.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing of the application for grant of anticipatory bail, interim bail was granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 on 17.06.2025 without considering the fact that there was serious allegation against them. On 24.06.2025, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 had stated before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge that the respondents No.2 and 3 were willing to transfer the disputed property in the name of the petitioner and would do so in future by depositing money with the mortgagee bank and as and when the litigation qua amount of two cheques was decided by the concerned court. It is submitted that it was on account of the statement so made on 24.06.2025 that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had made the order dated 17.06.2025 granting interim bail to the respondents No. 2 and 3 as absolute. It is argued that the bail was granted on a false premise i.e. the assurance of compliance as made by the counsel for the respondents. The property in question was mortgaged with the bank and even proceedings under SARFAESI Act had been initiated and this fact was in due knowledge of respondents No. 2 and 3. However, still they had entered into the aforesaid agreement to sell with the petitioner, which showed their dishonest intention. However, while granting bail to them, the Court concerned did n