Jagdish vs State Of Haryana And Another

CRM M-63339 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
114 CRM M-63339 of 2026
Date of Decision: 05.11.2026
Jagdish ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
483(3) of BNSS with a prayer to set aside the order dated 25.05.2026
(Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Faridabad,
whereby, the concession of regular bail was granted to respondent No.
2 in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 0116 (Annexure P-1) dated
07.07.2025, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 read with
Section 34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( u/s 316, 318(4), 338,
AMIT RANA
2026.11.12 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53670-2026 -2-
336(3), 340, 351, 3(5) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita
(BNS), registered at Police Station B.P.T.P, District Faridabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR
in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made
by the petitioner and the same has been reproduced below:-
"To the SHO, station BPTP, Faridabad. Subject:-
Complaint to take legal action against : 1-Vijay Veer son
of Shri Ram Prasad resident of House No. A-203,
Shivalik Colony, New Delhi-110017, 2-Anichand (PTI
Master) son of Late Shri Batti Sarpanch resident of
village Panhera Kalan, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District
Faridabad-Mobile No. 9467585828, regarding cheating
and forgery with the applicant and for threatening to kill
the applicant. 9841444447. Sir, I, Jagdish, son of Shri
Mohal Lal, resident of Kheri Kalan, Faridabad,
Haryana, humbly submit the following: Accused No. 2
introduced me to Accused No. 1, who claimed ownership
of a residential property located at House No. 2065,
Third Floor, Sector-2, Urban Estate, Faridabad,
Haryana, with an area of 250 square yards and a
covered area of 1485 square meters. He claimed joint
rights of two car parking spaces in the stilt area,
common lift and rooftop water tank. He agreed to sell
this property to me for Rs. 70,00,000 and executed an
agreement to sell dated 07.01.2022. I had already paid
40,00,000 via RTGS No. PUNBR52020110215875275
dated 02.11.2020. The registry date was fixed as
07.12.2022. Accused No. 2 demanded a 1% commission
for facilitating the deal. Accused No. 1 failed to obtain
AMIT RANA
2026.11.12 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53670-2026 -3-
the necessary transfer permission and NOC from the
concerned department within the stipulated time and kept
making excuses. When I pressured him to complete the
registry, he offered to transfer another property
Residential Plot No. 87 GI, Area 339.552 sq. meters, X
Block, Sector-76, Urban Estate, Faridabad - in my name,
for which, I would have to pay the remaining 30 lakhs.
Both accused conspired and executed another agreement
to sell dated 14.05.2024 for this alternate property. As
per the terms of the agreement, the accused were
supposed to obtain all necessary documents including
NOC before executing the registry. However, they
deliberately failed to do so. It is evident that the accused
had pre-planned this fraud and misled me into
purchasing the property with dishonest intent. The
accused's sole intention was to cheat me and cause
financial loss while benefiting themselves. They
knowingly disclosed different properties in two separate
agreements to deceive me. I am a victim of their
conspiracy, now, when I ask the accused to execute the
registry or return my money, they threaten to kill me and
my family. They claim to have strong connections in the
police and political circles and say I cannot harm them.
Therefore, I request you to take strict legal action against
the accused, ensure the registry of the said property in
my name, or have my money returned with interest. I also
request protection for myself and my family.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a
perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the respondent No. 2 had failed
to execute the sale deed intentionally with regard to the property in
AMIT RANA
2026.11.12 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53670-2026 -4-
question in favour of the petitioner on the date fixed i.e., 07.12.2022
in terms of the agreement to sell dated 07.01.2022. Further, even a
legal notice dated 18.12.2024 was issued to respondent No. 2/accused
to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on completion of
NOC of the property. However, respondent No. 2 showed his inability
to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. After
the registration of the FIR, the allegations leveled by the petitioner
were found to be correct during investigation and the petitioner was
arrested on 07.02.2026. After completion of investigation, the police
filed the challan against respondent No. 2 on 05.03.2026 under
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 and 201 of IPC. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that while granting the
concession of regular bail to respondent No. 02 on 25.05.2026, the
Court had completely failed to appreciate that the petitioner was a
habitual offender and was involved in following four more FIRs:-
“i. FIR No. 639 dated 07.11.2024 under section 420, 120
B registered at Police Station Ballabgarg, Faridabad.
ii. FIR No. 607 dated 15.10.2024 under section 420, 120
B registered at Police Station Ballabgarg, Faridabad.
iii. FIR No. 668 dated 24.10.2024 under section 420, 120
B registered at Police Station Sector-8, Faridabad.
iv. FIR No. 533 dated 29.12.2025 under section 120B,
419, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, Police Station Sector 8
Ballabgarh”.
AMIT RANA
2026.11.12 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53670-2026 -5-
4. Apart from that the Court also failed to appreciate that
the intention of respondent No. 2 was to grab the money of the
petitioner being a habitual offender. Even, after the grant of
concession of bail, the respondent No. 2 was threatening the petitioner
and he had moved an application (Annexure P-5) to the police also.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is yet to appear
before the trial Court as a witness and in case the respondent No. 2
remains on bail, he may threaten the witnesses of the prosecution.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the record very carefully.
6. In the present case, from a perusal of the impugned order,
it is apparent that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on
07.02.2026 and remained in custody till 25.05.2026, when he was
granted the concession of regular bail by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Farridabad. While granting the concession of bail to
respondent No. 2, the Court had taken into consideration that a prima
facie offence only under Section 420 IPC was made out against
respondent No. 2 in respect of agreement to sell dated 07.01.2022
However, the prosecution failed to pin point that a prima facie case
was made out against the respondent No. 2 under Sections 420 IPC in
respect to agreement to sell dated 07.01.2022. Further, the final report
did not contain any original agreement to sell. No forged document
was attached with the challan . However, still the police had preferred
AMIT RANA
2026.11.12 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53670-2026 -6-
to invoke the provisions of Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC against
respondent No. two and other accused. Even, the offence under
Section 201 IPC was added on the ground that the respondent No. 2
accused did not get the recovery of earnest money effected. All the
offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Apart from that, even
the challan was already presented against respondent No. 2. Thus, it
is apparent that while passing the impugned order, the Court had
taken into consideration all the relevant material as well as other
factors which clearly made out a case for grant of concession of bail
to the petitioner. Still further, even though it has been alleged that
respondent No. 2 had been threatening to withdraw the case against
him, however, no specific material has been placed on record by the
petitioner, i.e., no material to indicate that respondent No. 2 is an
influential person and may be in a position to influence the
prosecution witnesses.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M.
Dharmarajam and others Vs. State of Telangana and another, 2020
(1) RCR Crl. 540 has held as under:
“The factors to be considered while granting bail have
been held by this Court to be the gravity of the crime, the
character of the evidence, position and status of the
accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the
likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and
repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering
AMIT RANA
2026.11.12 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53670-2026 -7-
with the evidence and witnesses, and obstructing the
course of justice etc. Each criminal case presents its own
peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds
peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into
account by the Court. The court has to only opine as to
whether there is prima facie case against the accused.
For the purpose of bail, the Court must not undertake
meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the
police and comment on the same.”
7. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar this Court held
that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses
his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii)
interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts
to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens
witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would
hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of
his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make
himself scarce by going underground or becoming
unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to
place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The
above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It
must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on
one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order
because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and
hence it must not be lightly resorted to.
8. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in
cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious
infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court
granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima
facie involvement of the accused or takes into account
AMIT RANA
2026.11.12 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-53670-2026 -8-
irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the
question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court
or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the
bail.”
8. In view of above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the present petition is ordered to be dismissed.
05.11.2026 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
AMIT RANA
2026.11.12 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document