Anticipatory bail is unwarranted where an office-bearer fraudulently resells property already conveyed to another.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 169 dated 30.05.2026, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 420 IPC, at Police Station Division No. 1, Jalandhar.

The complainant alleged that Plot No. 104, measuring 10 marlas, had been sold by the Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Cooperative House Building Society to him and his mother through a registered sale deed dated 07.06.2000, followed by mutation in their favour.

Despite the earlier sale, the petitioner, who was an office-bearer of the society, executed another registered sale deed dated 12.02.2007 in favour of Pargan Singh, who subsequently sold the plot to Kamlesh Chaurasia in 2019; the latter constructed a house and obtained a bank loan against the property.

The petitioner argued that the complaint was highly delayed, the evidence was documentary and already in police custody, the dispute was civil in nature, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The State opposed bail, relying on the registered documents, the petitioner’s role in executing the subsequent sale deed, his receipt of Rs. 5 lakhs, and the resulting financial loss to the complainant.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging cheating under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

Whether the delay in lodging the complaint, the documentary nature of the evidence, and the pendency of civil proceedings justified the grant of anticipatory bail?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail.

The FIR invoked Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning cheating and dishonest inducement involving delivery of property.

In assessing anticipatory bail, the Court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner’s prima facie involvement, the documentary record, the nature of the alleged transaction, and the circumstances surrounding the delay in reporting.

The Court found that the society had already transferred Plot No. 104 to the complainant and his mother in 2000 and that mutation had been sanctioned in their favour.

Consequently, neither the society nor the petitioner was entitled to sell the same property again.

The petitioner’s execution, as an office-bearer of the society, of the registered sale deed dated 12.02.2007 in favour of Pargan Singh constituted material documentary evidence directly connecting him with the alleged cheating; the State also alleged that he had received Rs. 5 lakhs in cash.

The Court rejected the argument that the dispute was merely civil because the subsequent sale allegedly involved dishonest dealing with property already sold to the complainant.

It also held that the delay was not fatal, since the complainant claimed that he became aware of the subsequent transactions only after discovering that Kamlesh Chaurasia had constructed a house on the plot.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s prima facie role, the Court declined to extend the discretionary protection of anticipatory bail.

The existence of documentary evidence, the pendency of civil proceedings, and the alleged delay in the complaint did not outweigh the seriousness of the allegation that the petitioner had facilitated the resale of property previously sold to the complainant.

The petition under Section 482 BNSS was accordingly dismissed.