IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.05.2026 Navneet Gupta ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Bipin Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Joban Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Paul, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate Ms. Seerat Saldi, Advocate Mr. Vaasu Bhasin, (Legal Manager Bank)

for the IDFC Bank.

V INOD S. BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. This is first petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.99 dated 01.07.2024, under Section(s) 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 447, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Salem Tabri Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.

2. The FIR in the present case was registered on a complaint moved by the present applicant-petitioner against Harpreet Singh, Harsh Trehan, Inderjit Singh, Kulwant Singh and other co-accused persons to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana alleging commission of offence of cheating. As per the allegations in the said complaint, the complainant (petitioner herein) was to recover a sum of Rs.50 lacs from Harpreet Singh, who expressed his inability to pay and represented to the complainant- petitioner herein that he was the owner of a plot measuring 1387½ sq.yds. on the Main Road of Jalandhar Bypass. Harpreet Singh informed the complainant-petitioner that he was unable to raise a loan on the said property in his own name and proposed that he will execute a sale deed in favour of the complainant-petitioner so that a loan could be secured against the same. It was further represented that value of the said plot was approx. Rs.5 crores and after taking loan amount, he will adjust the amount which was due towards the complainant-petitioner and thereafter, he will pay the remaining loan amount in installments. In this regard, Harpreet Singh and other co- accused called the complainant-petitioner and showed him the documents of the said plot and got the sale deed executed in his favour and even the property tax was also paid. It was further alleged that Harpreet Singh had also given an affidavit assuring that he would repay the loan and also declaring that the property in question was free from all disputes and was validly owned by him as per sale deed bearing wasika no.5890 dated 24.6.1987. According to the complainant-petitioner, on the basis of said documents and representation, Harpreet Singh got sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,50,00,000/- and after adjusting Rs.50 lacs, which he owned to the complainant-petitioner, took away the remaining amount of Rs.2 crores. The complainant-petitioner further alleged that when he subsequently attempted to put up his board over the said property, he came to know that the accused persons in connivance with each other had prepared the forged documents in respect of the property and had fraudulently got the loan sanctioned from the bank. It was alleged that Harpreet Singh had taken away the entire loan amount after adjusting the amount due to the complainant-petitioner and when the complainant-petitioner confronted the accused persons regarding this, they started harassing and threatening him and also warned him to repay the loan amount, failing which they threatened to get him implicated in a false criminal case. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR was registered.

3. It also emerges from the record that the sale deed, on the basis whereof accused Harpreet Singh had claimed to be owner of the property in question was subsequently found to be forged and fabricated pursuant whereto a separate FIR No.25 dated 17.2.2024 was got registered by the SDM after conclusion of inquiry. It also came to light that on the strength of the aforesaid forged sale deed, the subsequent sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant-petitioner and on the basis thereo