IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Manpreet Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 08.05.2026 Date of Uploading : 08.05.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.01 dated 10.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340, 61(2) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station NRI, District SAS Nagar.

. The first petition bearing CRM-M-5173-2026 (Annexure P-2) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail filed before this Court was dismissed on merits thereof on 27.04.2026. The present petition is the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail which has been preferred by the petitioner on 04.05.2026.

2. The present FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant, namely Jaskirat Singh Tiwana, an NRI and the son of Harwinder Singh, who is stated to be the owner of the property in question. As per the allegations, Harwinder Singh had agreed to sell the land to co-accused Kuldeep Singh and, in furtherance thereof, an agreement to sell dated 22.11.2024 was allegedly executed, pursuant to which a substantial amount is stated to have been paid as earnest money in different instalments. It has been alleged by the complainant that the said agreement to sell is forged and fabricated and has been created as part of a conspiracy to illegally grab the property of his father. It has been further alleged that the accused persons, in connivance with each other, dishonestly induced his father to executing the said agreement and thereafter initiated civil proceedings for specific performance. The complainant has further alleged that Manpreet Singh (petitioner herein) played an active and significant role in the entire transaction. It has been specifically alleged that the petitioner introduced the father of the complainant to the co-accused and facilitated the execution of the alleged agreement. It has been further alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with the co-accused, prepared a forged and fabricated agreement to sell in respect of the aforesaid land. Neither the complainant nor his father had ever executed any such agreement and the same is alleged to be false and fabricated with the sole intention to grab the property in question. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR came to be registered and investigation was set into motion.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of personal vendetta and longstanding civil disputes between the families of the parties. Learned counsel has further iterated that the genesis of the dispute is purely civil in nature, arising out of an agreement to sell allegedly executed between co-accused namely Kuldeep Singh and the father of the complainant with which the petitioner has no concern whatsoever. It has been further contended that the petitioner is neither a party nor a witness to the said agreement to sell and no role has been attributed to him in the execution of the document. According to learned counsel, the allegations levelled in the FIR are vague and omnibus insofar as the petitioner is concerned. It has been further contended that even prior to the registration of the FIR in question, a civil suit for specific performance has already been instituted by the co- accused against the father of the complainant which clearly reflects that the dispute pertains to enforcement of contractual rights and has been given a criminal colour only to pressurize the accused per