Anticipatory bail may be denied when there is a strong prima facie case of conspiracy and fraud against the accused, even if custodial interrogation is not the sole factor, as the nature, severity, and necessity of the investigation must be considered.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS ( Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.143 dated 21.03.2026 under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (earlier Sections 420, 465, 468, 467, 471, 120(B) IPC and Section 36 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 registered at Police Station City Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar.

The brief facts are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint filed by Davinder Kumar Sharma against Balwinder Singh Property Dealer, Sonu Property Dealer and Gurpreet @ Kala (petitioner) with the allegations that he alongwith his wife Tripta Sharma had bought a plot no. 35 in Shivalik Vihar, Zirakpur on 03.12.2003. But some unknown persons had encroached upon their plot and constructed a house. The said persons came to his house at Hoshiarpur and claimed themselves to be the owners of said plot. But he had not sold the plot to any person and same was recorded in his name in the revenue record. On the above complaint, inquiry was conducted and it was found that Harbhajan Singh had constructed an illegal colony under the name of Shivalik Vihar Sites Pvt. Ltd., Patiala Road Zirakpur. Harbhajan Singh had sold one plot measuring 171 sq. Yards for ₹2,05,500/- to Davinder Kumar Sharma and his wife Tripta Sharma but there was no mention of the plot number or the size of the plot in the said sale deed. After that Harbhajan Singh had also issued a possession letter to Davinder Kumar Sharma in which he mentioned plot no. 35 and also mentioned the sides and dimensions of the plot. Similarly, Harbhajan Singh sold plot no. 33 measuring 200 sq. Yards vide sale deed dated 14.01.2005 to one Rajnish Nanda. The said Rajnish Nanda knowing that he had no concern with the plot no. 35, in connivance with Harbhajan Singh, Kulvir Singh and Gurpreet Singh @ Kala, gave Power of Attorney of plot no. 35 to Kulvir Singh son of Amrik Singh on 09.04.2025. The said Kulvir Singh further sold the said plot vide sale deed dated 20.05.2025 for ₹49,00,000/- to Gurpreet Singh @ Kala. The said Gurpreet Singh paid ₹17,00,000/- in cash to Kulvir Singh out of which Kulvir Singh has paid ₹5,00,000/- to Harbhajan Singh which proves the connivance of Kulvir Singh and Harbhajan Singh with each other. The said Gurpreet Singh further sold the plot no. 35 vide sale deed dated 19.09.2025 for ₹72,00,000/- to Roshni Rawat and Umedh Singh Rawat. The said purchasers were raising construction on the plot. Hence, accused Harbhajan Singh, Rajnish Nanda, Kulvir Singh and Gurpreet Singh @ Kala in connivance with each other have committed the offences in question. Harbhajan Singh was aware that Davinder Singh Sharma was living in Hoshiarpur and he would rarely visit his plot. Hence, the accused had sold the plot of Davinder Kumar Sharma without his permission in order to obtain monetary benefit and have committed cheating.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the property in question through a validly executed sale deed. The legitimacy of the possession of the petitioner stands established from the fact that he sought formal approval for a site plan from the Municipal Council, Zirakpur and thereafter, commenced construction on the site in an open and transparent manner. Even prior to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner has approached the Civil Court at Dera Bassi in cases tilted as ‘Gurpreet Singh versus Davinder Kumar’ and Gurpreet Singh versus Kulbir Singh’ where ad interim injunctions have been granted to the petitioner and the complainants have been restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Once civil proceedings are pending, the institution of the present criminal case is only with an intent to pressurize the petitioner. Even otherwise, the case is based on documentary evidence. He, therefore, prays that the petition