Prem Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr

CRM-M-55172 of 2026 (O&M) -1-



IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

214
CRM-M-55172-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.11.2026

Prem Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another
...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON

Present:- Mr. Arshdeep, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG., Punjab.

Mr. R.S.Bath, Advocate
for the complainant.
*

NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section
438 Cr.P.C.), seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 132 dated 31.07.2026
(Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka,
under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, respectively).

SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55172 of 2026 (O&M) -2-
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Madan Lal
and his brother Ashwani Kumar entered into an agreement to sell dated
21.03.2020 with co-accused Kapil Dev @ Kapil Kumar and Sham Lal @
Sham Sunder in respect of property bearing No. 1731, situated at Railway
Road, Jalalabad, for a total consideration of Rs 25 lakhs, out of which Rs 7
lakhs was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was stipulated to be
executed on 19.03.2021; however, the vendors failed to perform their
obligation. It subsequently emerged during the inquiry that the said co-
accused had earlier executed a General Power of Attorney dated 30.10.2018
in favour of the present petitioner, who, acting thereunder, executed a
registered sale deed dated 21.11.2019 in favour of Krishna Rani, his sister-
in-law. Notwithstanding the said conveyance, the petitioner is further
attributed the role of having attested an agreement to sell by way of
mortgage dated 27.02.2020, executed by the original owners in favour of
Jarnail Singh, concerning the very same property. On the basis of the inquiry
and the legal opinion obtained, the present FIR came to be registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in what is essentially a civil dispute arising out
of an agreement to sell. It is submitted that he was neither a party nor a
signatory to the agreement dated 21.03.2020 and had not received any
portion of the earnest money. His involvement, according to learned counsel,
was confined to the execution of a registered sale deed in his capacity as a
duly authorised attorney holder, much before the transaction entered into
with the complainant. The allegation regarding his attestation of the
subsequent mortgage-related agreement is disputed. It is further urged that
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55172 of 2026 (O&M) -3-
civil proceedings concerning the property are already pending adjudication,
the relevant transactions are evidenced by documents, and no custodial
interrogation is warranted. On these premises, the petitioner seeks the
concession of anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra , learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 2/complainant, Madan Lal, opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail. A short reply dated 26.10.2026, filed by way of
affidavit of Lavdeep Singh Gill, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police
(Headquarters), Fazilka, holding additional charge of Deputy Superintendent
of Police (Sub-Division), Jalalabad, on behalf of the respondent-State, is
taken on record. Referring to the contents thereof, learned counsel submit
that the petitioner was not merely a stranger to the transactions concerning
the property. Having executed the registered sale deed dated 21.11.2019 in
favour of his sister-in-law, Krishna Rani, he subsequently attested the
mortgage-related agreement dated 27.02.2020 concerning the very same
property. It is further pointed out that the complainant has specifically
questioned the genuineness of the consideration recited in the earlier sale
deed, wherein payment through RTGS was mentioned without disclosing the
corresponding banking particulars. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner’s
role cannot be viewed in isolation from the successive transactions involving
the same property.
5. Learned counsel further submit that the preliminary inquiry
revealed sufficient material warranting registration of the FIR against the
petitioner and the co-accused. Attention is also invited to the petitioner’s
criminal antecedents, comprising FIR No. 67 dated 25.05.2010, registered
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55172 of 2026 (O&M) -4-
under Sections 61/1/14 of the Excise Act at Police Station City Jalalabad,
and FIR No. 02 dated 03.01.2013, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467,
468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad. It is maintained
that the petitioner’s participation in the transactions, viewed alongside the
material collected during the inquiry and his antecedents, does not warrant
the exercise of discretion in his favour. Accordingly, dismissal of the
petition is prayed for.
6. During the course of hearing, a copy of a notarised
affidavit/declaration executed by the petitioner concerning the property in
question has also been furnished and is taken on record. The said document
contains declarations concerning the acquisition of the property and an
undertaking regarding responsibility in the event of disputes arising
therefrom.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record, this Court finds that the allegations cannot be examined
merely as a case of non-performance of an agreement to sell. The
petitioner’s individual role, viewed in the context of the successive
transactions concerning the same property, calls for closer scrutiny.
8. The sequence of transactions assumes significance in the
present case. The petitioner, acting under the General Power of Attorney
dated 30.10.2018, executed the registered sale deed dated 21.11.2019 in
favour of his sister-in-law, Krishna Rani. Yet, notwithstanding the said
conveyance, he is attributed the role of having attested the agreement to sell
by way of mortgage dated 27.02.2020, executed by the original owners in
favour of Jarnail Singh. The property thereafter became the subject matter of
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55172 of 2026 (O&M) -5-
another agreement to sell dated 21.03.2020 in favour of the complainant and
his brother. The petitioner’s association with a subsequent transaction
concerning property which he had already conveyed to his close relative
assumes particular significance. His knowledge of the earlier conveyance
and the circumstances in which he came to be associated with the
subsequent dealings require examination. The Court cannot, at this stage,
proceed on the assumption that his involvement was merely incidental.
9. The notarised affidavit/declaration furnished during the
hearing lends a further dimension to the controversy. The petitioner has
therein made declarations concerning the acquisition of the property and
undertaken responsibility in the event of disputes arising therefrom.
Although the document cannot, at this stage, be treated as conclusive proof
of ownership, its contents bear upon the petitioner’s assertion that he acted
exclusively in a representative capacity. The complainant has also
questioned the consideration recited in the registered sale deed dated
21.11.2019, particularly the absence of corresponding banking particulars
despite the recital of payment through RTGS. The circumstances
surrounding the execution of the conveyance, the consideration purportedly
paid and the petitioner’s relationship with the transferee are matters
requiring investigation, without any premature determination of the validity
or genuineness of the transaction.
10. The petitioner’s reliance upon the pendency of civil
proceedings does not materially advance his case. The existence of a
contractual relationship or a remedy before the Civil Court does not, by
itself, exclude criminal liability where the allegations, independently
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55172 of 2026 (O&M) -6-
examined, disclose the ingredients of a criminal offence. The distinction lies
between a mere breach of a contractual obligation and a transaction attended
by dishonest intention or concerted conduct. Whether such intention existed
in the present case remains a matter for investigation; nevertheless, the
circumstances emerging from the successive dealings and the petitioner’s
attributed participation therein cannot be brushed aside merely because civil
proceedings concerning the property are pending. The Court is mindful that
criminality cannot be inferred from a failed transaction alone. The present
prosecution case, however, rests upon circumstances extending beyond the
subsequent failure to execute a sale deed.
11. The principles governing the exercise of discretion in matters
of anticipatory bail are well settled. In State of Haryana v. Dharamraj,
(2023) 17 SCC 510, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while emphasising the
necessity of examining the peculiar facts of each case, observed in paragraph
11 as under:
“11. Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to be
exercised with judicial discretion. The factors illustrated by this
Court through its pronouncements are illustrative, and not
exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the fate of each case turns on its own
facts and merits. …”
(emphasis supplied)

The aforesaid principle assumes relevance in the present case, where the
petitioner’s individual participation is required to be assessed in the context
of the transactions disclosed by the investigation, rather than by applying
any inflexible rule governing disputes arising out of agreements to sell.
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55172 of 2026 (O&M) -7-
12. In Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. and another,
(2022) 17 SCC 391 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the absence of
a requirement for custodial interrogation cannot, by itself, furnish sufficient
justification for granting anticipatory bail. The existence of a prima facie
case, the nature of the accusations and the gravity of the offence remain
material considerations in the exercise of such discretion. In the present case,
the petitioner’s admitted execution of the earlier conveyance, his attributed
association with the subsequent mortgage-related agreement and the
questions surrounding the consideration recited in the sale deed furnish a
prima facie basis for examining his involvement. The mere fact that the
transactions are evidenced by documents does not, in itself, outweigh these
considerations or entitle the petitioner to pre-arrest protection.
13. The criminal antecedents disclosed in the State’s reply
constitute an additional consideration. Apart from the present FIR, two other
cases have been registered against the petitioner, including FIR No. 02 dated
03.01.2013, involving offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B IPC. Although the mere registration of previous criminal cases is
neither proof of guilt nor an independent ground for refusing anticipatory
bail, the antecedents of an applicant are relevant to the overall exercise of
judicial discretion. The outcome of the earlier proceedings has not been
disclosed in the reply and, therefore, no adverse inference regarding their
result is being drawn. The present petition is being considered principally on
the strength of the material relating to the petitioner’s attributed role in the
transactions forming the subject matter of the FIR.
14. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, while
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-55172 of 2026 (O&M) -8-
declining anticipatory bail vide order dated 14.09.2026 (Annexure P-2), also
took note of the specific role attributed to the petitioner. On an independent
appraisal of the material presently available, this Court finds that the
petitioner’s admitted participation in the earlier conveyance, his attributed
involvement in a subsequent transaction concerning the same property and
the circumstances brought forth during the inquiry furnish sufficient grounds
to decline the discretionary relief sought. His plea of having acted merely as
an attorney holder, though available to him in accordance with law, does not,
in the peculiar circumstances of the case, justify the grant of anticipatory
bail.
15. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the
same is dismissed.
16. The observations made herein are confined to the
adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the investigation
or subsequent proceedings, which shall be conducted and decided
independently in accordance with law.


02.11.2026 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
s.khan
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document