Mintu Rathore vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-54570-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
202
CRM-M-54570-2026
Decided on: 11.11.2026
Mintu Rathore
…...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and anr
…...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. V.P. Singh Rathore, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Manbir Singh Batth, Advocate,
for the complainant.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Petitioner – Mintu Rathore has filed present petition under
Section 482 of BNSS, seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 119
dated 02.06.2026, under Sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of
IPC [corresponding S. 303(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340-(2), 61(2)
of BNS, 2023], registered at Police Station Focal Point, District
Ludhiana.
2. On 24.09.2026, following order was passed:-
“ 1. xxx
2. At the very outset, on the oral request of learned counsel
for the petitioner, the complainant, Paramjit Singh son of
RASHMI
2026.11.12 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54570-2026 2
Hakam Singh, resident of 45, Executive Court, Brampton,
L6R0L4, Canada, presently residing at Village Mangli Uchi,
Tehsil and District Ludhiana, is impleaded as respondent
No.2 in the array of parties. Registry is directed to carry out
the necessary addition/correction in the memo of parties.
Let amended memo of parties be also filed in the
Registry within a period of two days, without moving any
specific application in this regard.
3. Case of the prosecution is that an agreement to sell
dated 01.12.2024 was executed in respect of the suit land
measuring 3 acres for a total sale consideration of Rs.42
lakhs. An amount of Rs.18 lakhs was paid to the complainant
as earnest money, and thereafter, physical possession of the
property in question was also delivered to Raminderjit Singh
@ Raminder Jeet Singh. Apart from the agreement to sell, a
Rasidnama (document executed in acknowledgment of
receipt of the token amount) was also executed, bearing the
signatures of the complainant, Paramjit Singh.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in
respect of the same property, a civil suit bearing No. CS-
2037/2024 seeking a decree of specific performance is
already pending before the Civil Court and, according to
him, the same had been instituted prior to registration of the
present FIR. It is further submitted that the FIR was
registered only on 02.06.2026, after a delay of more than
three years, with the sole intention of pressurizing the
petitioner, particularly when no actual loss has been suffered
by the complainant.
5. Further submits that it is an admitted position in the
FIR itself that, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.42
lakhs, only Rs.18 lakhs had been paid, whereas the
remaining amount was yet to be paid at the time of execution
RASHMI
2026.11.12 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54570-2026 3
and registration of the sale deed. Thus, it is argued that no
offence of cheating could have been committed at that stage,
as no right in the property had been transferred in favour of
the petitioner by allegedly playing fraud or deception upon
the complainant.
It is, therefore, contended that the FIR itself was
registered prematurely and that the stand taken by
respondent No.2 is also contradictory.
6. He submits that the petitioner has been engaged in the
business of property dealing for the last more than 10 years
and has never, during his entire career, faced any such
allegation from any customer. It is also pointed out that the
complainant, Paramjit Singh, is an NRI and had himself
approached the petitioner for the sale of the property in
question. Thereafter, the complainant affixed his signatures
on the documents after understanding the contents thereof.
Thus, it is argued that, even if the allegations are
taken to be factually correct on their face value, the essential
element of mens rea is completely absent, as the petitioner
had acted only at the instance of the complainant-respondent
No.2 and not on his own initiative.
7. To fortify the aforesaid submission, he refers to the
enquiry/investigation during which the petitioner admitted
his signatures on the Rasidnama, but disputed the material
typed thereon. Learned counsel further points out that, while
dismissing the bail application, the learned Trial Court, vide
the impugned order dated 20.08.2026 (P-8), placed reliance
upon the FSL report, which, according to him, contradicts
the stand taken by the complainant-respondent No.2 during
the course of investigation. As per the FSL report, the
signatures appearing on the Rasidnama dated 22.04.2023
RASHMI
2026.11.12 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54570-2026 4
and the Ikrarnama dated 28.11.2023 were not found to have
been signed by the complainant.
8. Thus, the argument advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner is that, on the one hand, the stand of the
complainant is contradictory, which, though apparently goes
against the interest of the petitioner, is ultimately an issue to
be determined by the Civil Court. It is submitted that the
petitioner would have an independent right to have his own
handwriting expert to examine the disputed signatures in
order to establish his defence. Alternatively, it is for the
prosecution to explain how there are two opinions regarding
the signatures appearing on the Rasidnama.
Even the co-accused of the petitioner, i.e. Raminderjit
Singh @ Raminder Jeet Singh, has already been granted the
concession of ad-interim anticipatory bail vide order dated
18.09.2026.
9. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that,
even after granting ex parte interim stay in the application
filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC vide order dated
30.04.2024 (P-2), respondent No.2/complainant filed an
application under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151
CPC for vacating the ex parte interim injunction order dated
30.04.2024, which application had been dismissed vide
order dated 09.04.2025 (P-3).
10. On being asked by the Court whether the aforesaid ex
parte interim injunction order (P-2) had attained finality or
whether the same was ever challenged before the higher
Court in appeal, it is replied by learned counsel that the said
order had never been challenged by respondent
No.2/complainant before any Court.
Even learned counsel appearing on advance notice on
behalf of respondent No.2/complainant expresses his
RASHMI
2026.11.12 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54570-2026 5
inability to answer in the absence of any instructions in that
regard.
Thus, learned counsel further submits that custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not required, as he is ready
and willing to join the investigation, if protected from arrest.
11. Notice of motion.
12. On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in
appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and seeks
some time to respond to the submissions addressed by
learned counsel opposite, after seeking instructions, and, in
case of necessity, to file status report.
At this stage, Mr. Manbir Singh Batth, Advocate, also
puts in appearance on advance notice and files his Memo of
Appearance and also submits that the requisite Power of
Attorney/Vakalatnama shall be filed by him in the Registry in
due course of time.
13. Adjourned to 11.11.2026.
14. In the meanwhile, petitioner is directed to join the
investigation as and when required to do so by the
Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner
shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing
bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The
petitioner shall also abide by all the conditions laid down
under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2)
Cr.P.C.).
15. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over
his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court
concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an
affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any
passport.
RASHMI
2026.11.12 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54570-2026 6
It is also directed that before leaving country any time
during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the
Court. ”
3. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends in compliance with the order dated 24.09.2026 passed
by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation and has extended full
cooperation. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim
anticipatory bail order.
4. Learned State counsel on instructions confirms the said
averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation
by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner, in
connivance with the co-accused, has duped the complainant by
fabricating and manipulating the documents pertaining to the property in
question. It is contended that the disputed Rasidnama and other
documents form the foundation of the alleged fraudulent transaction and
that the petitioner has actively participated in the commission of the
offence. Learned counsel further submits that the pendency of civil
proceedings does not, by itself, render the criminal proceedings
unsustainable, particularly when specific allegations of forgery,
fabrication and cheating have been levelled against the petitioner. It is,
thus, argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary
RASHMI
2026.11.12 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-54570-2026 7
to unearth the entire conspiracy, ascertain the role of the petitioner and
the co-accused, and investigate the circumstances in which the disputed
documents were prepared and executed. Accordingly, dismissal of the
present petition is prayed for.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation; ad-
interim bail order dated 24.09.2026, passed by this Court is hereby made
absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.
However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation
as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions
laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.
8. However, it is clarified that, in the event the petitioner fails
to submit his passport, or an affidavit regarding non-possession of a
passport, if he does not possess one, before the Investigating Agency or
the concerned Court within a period of one week from today, the present
order shall stand rendered inoperative, and the Investigating Officer shall
be at liberty to proceed with the arrest of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
11.11.2026.
Rashmi
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
RASHMI
2026.11.12 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document