IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:15.10.2025 Date of decision:17.10.2025 Virender Singh ...Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate and Mr. Pradeep Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the complainant.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section Section 482 of the BNSS seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.12, dated 16.01.2024, under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhupani, District Faridabad.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant – Nitin Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s Urban India Investment alleging that the petitioner had agreed to sell 5 kanals and 14.5 marlas of land owned by him, situated within the revenue estate of village Tajpur by executing the written agreement dated 08.02.2021 in his favour. He had claimed himself to be the absolute owner in possession of the aforementioned property. A sum of Rs.25 lakhs had been given by the complainant to the petitioner as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the petitioner had already transferred the above mentioned property in favour of his son Raj Kumar by executing a registered release deed dated 14.12.2012. By alleging that he had been cheated at the hands of the petitioner, the complainant prayed for taking action.

3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide order dated

17.07.2025.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature, which has been given a criminal colour. In a civil suit bearing No.2695 of 2025 as filed by the complainant, the details of the amount of money is different than the amount of money as claimed to be given in the FIR. Infact the complainant is a moneylender. The petitioner borrowed money from him. As a security, the complainant had procured signatures of the petitioner on some blank papers which he is using for usurping his property despite the fact that the loan amount already stands cleared. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. He has clean antecedents. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. The ingredient for commission of offence of cheating are attracted against the petitioner as by concealing the fact that he was not the owner of the said property and had transferred the same in favour of his son, had executed agreement qua the same property in favour of the complainant and had received a sum of Rs.25 lakhs from him. He failed to execute the sale deed and even to return the amount given by the petitioner with malafide intention. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter. No exceptional and extraordinary ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner is alleged to have induced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs.25 lakhs on the premise that he would execute sale deed in respect of property in question in his favour while fully knowing that he was not the owner of the said property and had transferred the same