Anticipatory bail cannot be granted solely on the ground that custodial interrogation is unnecessary; the court must first establish a prima facie case, considering the nature and severity of the offence and the petitioner's involvement in the alleged conspiracy.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

CRM-17945-2026

The application for placing on record the certain document (Anexures P-8 to P-11) is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. The same are taken on record.

CRM-M-19584-2026

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, Mohali.

2. 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 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 (petitioner) and Gurpreet Singh @ Kala, gave Power of Attorney of plot no. 35 to Kulvir Singh (petitioner) 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.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The true facts are that the petitioner had come into contact with co-accused/Gurpreet Singh @ Kala who is a property dealer who told the petitioner-Kulvir Singh about the plot in question owned by his frient Rajnish Nanda. He further told that Rajnish Nanda needed the money. He allured the petitioner by saying that th