The addition of offences based on a belated FSL report does not automatically justify the denial of anticipatory bail if the accused has previously cooperated and there is no demonstrated necessity for custodial interrogation.

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

2. Allegations in the FIR, which was got registered at the instance of complainant – Avtar Singh (real brother of the petitioner), are that the complainant is owner of property bearing No.3606 (Municipal No. UID B022-00581), situated at Street No.4, Gill Road, Chet Singh Nagar, Ludhiana, and that petitioner, along with his wife – Kuldeep Kaur, leased out the said property to Dada Motors and Radiant Cash Management Service Pvt. Ltd., by projecting themselves to be owners thereof, and received lease amount to the tune of Rs.40.00 lakhs.

Considering the allegations, vide order dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) both, petitioner and his wife were granted anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner joined investigation and upon completion thereof, challan also came to be presented. During the course of investigation, the original agreement to sell was handed over to the Investigating Officer and while granting anticipatory bail, the Court of Sessions recorded as under:-

“3. Police record perused. I have heard the rival contentions and have perused the record on file. Admittedly, complainant and applicant no.1/accused Jaspal Singh are brothers and applicant no.2 is the wife of applicant no.1. Further there is no denial of the fact that complainant is the owner of the property which was rented out to Dada motors and to Radiant Cash Management Service private Limited by applicant no.1/accused Jaspal Singh and applicant no.2/accused Kuldeep Kaur respectively. The grouse of complainant is that both the applicants falsely represented themselves as owners of above-said property in the above referred lease deeds and received rental amount from the lessees to the tune of Rs.40 lacs and thus caused wrongful loss to him. However, the contention of applicants/accused is that the entire arrangement was made with the consent of complainant as applicant no.1/accused Jaspal Singh who is brother of complainant was looking after the family and property, while complainant was settled abroad and that applicants had received rent with the consent of complainant. It was also contended that in subsequent lease deed dated 26-08-2023 executed by complainant himself in favour of Dada Motors, he had himself mentioned that earlier lease deed dated 12-12-2019 was signed by his brother i.e. applicant no.1/accused Jaspal Singh as complainant was out of country. But in complaint dated 29-03-2024 moved by complainant against the applicants, false allegations were levelled by distorting the real facts. The applicant no.1/accused had set up agreement to sell dated 25-11-2022 executed by complainant in his favour which is challenged being forged. Ld. Counsel for complainant has stated at bar that he is ready to hand over the original agreement to sell to the investigating agency for the purpose of investigation. The parties are already in civil dispute and in lease deed dated 26-08-2023 executed by complainant in favour of Dada