IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.05.2026 RAJEEV SINGH ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr., Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Akhil Godara, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikram Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition for pre-arrest bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.399 dated 07.07.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station DLF, District Gurugram.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Saeen Das Rampal @ S.D.

Rampal Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only.

3. The pith and substance of above-mentioned complaint was that;-

the complainant was a 79 year old person, having an old age wife and a daughter, who was already married. As per complainant in the backdrop of above-mentioned prevailing circumstances, he came in contact of petitioner, who told him that he was running the business in partnership with ‘Surbhi Aggarwal’, and that ‘Surbhi Aggarwal’ was owner of Plot No.B-282, Sushant Lok-1, Block-B, Gurugram admeasuring 215 square yards.

The complainant further alleged that with regard to above- mentioned plot against a sum of Rs.3,17,00,000/- a MOU was signed by him with the petitioner and it was agreed upon that on construction of house over the above-

mentioned plot, by the petitioner, the ground floor will belong to the petitioner and the remaining three floors alongwith roof-rights to the complainant.

The complainant further alleged that on various occasions through various modes i.e. cash, bank transactions and cheques, he had paid Rs.2,97,00,000/- to the petitioner, and that in September, 2023 when the policy with regard to number of floors to be constructed over a plot, was revised by the State Haryana Government and the number of floors were restricted to ground plus two only.

According to complainant in such circumstances a revised MOU was signed by him with the petitioner on 07.09.2023 and according to that MOU 62% of the property came into the share of complainant and 38% into share of petitioner. As per complainant by that time he had already paid Rs.2,97,00,000/- to the petitioner and only Rs.20,00,000/- was outstanding.

The complainant further alleged that on completion of construction of the building, despite receipt of entire money, neither the possession, as per MOU, has been handed over to the complainant nor the sale deed has been executed. The complainant further alleged that in such circumstances, a civil suit was filed by him, wherein the learned Civil Court directed the petitioner not to sell the property to a third party without a clause therein, with regard to dispute between the petitioner and the complainant. According to complainant despite a direction of the learned Civil Court, the petitioner has transferred the above-mentioned property to a third party and thus created a third party interest. While claiming that he has been cheated by the petitioner, the complainant asked for action against the petitioner.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in the present case the benefit of interim anticipatory bail has already been accorded to the petitioner by virtue of order dated 09.01.2026, and that pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement, the petitioner has already joined the investigation. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further contended that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The learned counsel fo