CRM-M-499338-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH (112) CCRM-M-49938-2026 (O&M) DDate of decision : 03.09.2026 ANKITA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HHARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for thhe petitioner MMr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. AG, Harryana MMr. A.S. Dhindas, Advocate for tthe complainant **** MANISHA BBATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. TThe instant petition has been filedd by the petitioner under Sectionn 482 of Bharaatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) forr grant of anticiipatory bail in case arising out oof FIR No.140 dated 01.08.20266 registered undder Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for shortt “BNS”) at Pollice Station Guhla, District Kaithhal. 2. TThe aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of aa complaint joinntly submitted by the victims BBalwinder Singh and Gurwinderr Singh, alleginng that they had purchased 6 Kaanals and 6 Marlas of land fromm three persons,, namely Sarban Kumar, Shivamm Kumar, and Sushant Kumar,, vide a registeered sale deed dated 23rd Deccember, 2011. They had takenn possession of the purchased land, and mutatiion was also sanctioned in theirr name. 1830 sqquare yards of land out of the laand purchased by them was partt AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.04 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-499338-2026 (O&M) 2

of an approveed colony, and its property ID wwas entered in the name of thee complainant GGurwinder Singh; whereas 1905 square yards of land, which wass part of an unaapproved colony, and its propertyy ID was entered in the name off the complainaant Balwinder Singh. It was alleged that the petitioner, inn connivance wwith the co-accused Mukhtiar Singh, had got a property IDD entered qua 188 Kanals of land situated in an uunapproved area. With regard too the same propperty, she got entered through Municipal Committee, Cheekaa another properrty ID in the year 2026 and soldd the said land to the co-accusedd Mukhtiar Singgh vide sale deed dated 22.05.22026, on the basis of which thee accused Mukhhtiar Singh was trying to take forcible possession of the landd owned by thee complainants in the unapprooved colony. Alleging that thee petitioner, in cconnivance with the co-accusedd, had cheated the complainants,, they prayed foor taking action in the matter. 3. AAfter registration of the FIR, iinvestigation proceedings havee been initiatedd and are underway. Apprehennding her arrest, the petitionerr moved an appplication for grant of anticipatoryy bail, which has been dismissedd by the court oof learned Additional Sessions JJudge, Kaithal vide order datedd 17.08.2026.

4. Itt is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she hass been falsely immplicated in this case. She is a bbona fide purchaser/owner of 188 Kanals of lannd. Property ID No. 6KDN70015 was issued to her by thee competent autthority in the year 2026. She has sold this property to co-accusedd Mukhtiar Singgh in good faith and in a traansparent manner. She had noo AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.04 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-499338-2026 (O&M) 3 fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of sale. No mens rea can bee attributed to hher. She had no authority to classsify "approved" or "unapproved"" areas. Mere exxistence of two property IDs forr the same property does not byy itself constituute any criminal offense. The case rests upon documentaryy evidence whicch is already in possession of tthe investigating agency. She iss ready to join the investigation. Her custodiaal interrogation is not required.. No recovery iis to be effected from her. A ccivil litigation between the co--accused and tthe complainants is pending. TThe dispute is of a civil nature.. With these brroad submissions, it is urged that she deserves to be given thee concession of bail. 5. NNotice of motion.

6. LLearned State counsel has acceptted notice of the petition. Powerr of attorney onn behalf of the complainant has also been filed. Learned Statee counsel, assissted by learned counsel for thee complainant, has vehementlyy argued that the allegations against the petitionner are serious in nature. Firstly,, the petitioner got issued a property ID for 188 Kanals of land existing in ann unapproved arrea from Municipal Committee, Cheeka, and with regard to thee same propertyy, she got another ID prepared inn the year 2026 so as to show thee same propertyy to be part of an approved areaa, and sold it to the co-accusedd Mukhtiar Sinngh with intent to cheat the complainants, who had alsoo purchased a part of the same property from ssome other vendors. It is arguedd that for condducting a proper and thoroughh investigation in the matter,, AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.04 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-499338-2026 (O&M) 4 custodial interrrogation of the petitioner is a mmust. It is, therefore, argued thatt the petition dooes not deserve to be allowed. 7. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties at considerable length.

8. TThe petitioner is alleged to have pprocured two property IDs fromm Municipal Committee, Cheeka with regard too the same property. In the firstt ID, this properrty was shown to be part of an uunapproved area, whereas in thee second ID, thiis property was shown to be lyingg in an approved area. The samee is alleged to hhave been done to cause wrongfful loss to the victims. The casee is, however, bbased on documentary evidence, and the relevant documents aree already in thhe custody of the investigatting agency. In the peculiarr circumstancess of the case, custodial interroogation of the petitioner is nott required. It iss a matter of trial as to whether the ingredients for commissionn of the offencee punishable under Section 318 (4) of the BNS are attracted inn this case or nnot? Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, thiss Court is of thee considered opinion that pre-triaal incarceration of the petitionerr is not requiredd. Even otherwise, it is a well-setttled proposition of law that pre--trial incarceratation should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Ass per the discusssion made above, the petition is allowed and the petitioner iss ordered to bee extended benefit of anticipatoory bail, subject to her joiningg investigation aand surrendering within a periood of 15 days from the date off receipt of a ccertified copy of this order andd upon doing so, she shall bee AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.04 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-499338-2026 (O&M) 5 released on baail by the Investigating Officer oon furnishing personal as well ass surety bonds to his satisfaction. 9. Itt is, however, clarified that the observations made above shalll not be construued as an expression of opinion oof this Court on the merits of thee case and shall not influence the outcome of thee trial in any manner. 10. SSince the main petition has been allowed, pending application, iff any, is rendereed infructuous. ((MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 03.09.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:-- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.04 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-499338-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH (112) CCRM-M-49938-2026 (O&M) DDate of decision : 03.09.2026 ANKITA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HHARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for thhe petitioner MMr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. AG, Harryana MMr. A.S. Dhindas, Advocate for tthe complainant **** MANISHA BBATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. TThe instant petition has been filedd by the petitioner under Sectionn 482 of Bharaatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) forr grant of anticiipatory bail in case arising out oof FIR No.140 dated 01.08.20266 registered undder Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for shortt “BNS”) at Pollice Station Guhla, District Kaithhal. 2. TThe aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of aa complaint joinntly submitted by the victims BBalwinder Singh and Gurwinderr Singh, alleginng that they had purchased 6 Kaanals and 6 Marlas of land fromm three persons,, namely Sarban Kumar, Shivamm Kumar, and Sushant Kumar,, vide a registeered sale deed dated 23rd Deccember, 2011. They had takenn possession of the purchased land, and mutatiion was also sanctioned in theirr name. 1830 sqquare yards of land out of the laand purchased by them was partt AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.04 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-499338-2026 (O&M) 2

of an approveed colony, and its property ID wwas entered in the name of thee complainant GGurwinder Singh; whereas 1905 square yards of land, which wass part of an unaapproved colony, and its propertyy ID was entered in the name off the complainaant Balwinder Singh. It was alleged that the petitioner, inn connivance wwith the co-accused Mukhtiar Singh, had got a property IDD entered qua 188 Kanals of land situated in an uunapproved area. With regard too the same propperty, she got entered through Municipal Committee, Cheekaa another properrty ID in the year 2026 and soldd the said land to the co-accusedd Mukhtiar Singgh vide sale deed dated 22.05.22026, on the basis of which thee accused Mukhhtiar Singh was trying to take forcible possession of the landd owned by thee complainants in the unapprooved colony. Alleging that thee petitioner, in cconnivance with the co-accusedd, had cheated the complainants,, they prayed foor taking action in the matter. 3. AAfter registration of the FIR, iinvestigation proceedings havee been initiatedd and are underway. Apprehennding her arrest, the petitionerr moved an appplication for grant of anticipatoryy bail, which has been dismissedd by the court oof learned Additional Sessions JJudge, Kaithal vide order datedd 17.08.2026.

4. Itt is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she hass been falsely immplicated in this case. She is a bbona fide purchaser/owner of 188 Kanals of lannd. Property ID No. 6KDN70015 was issued to her by thee competent autthority in the year 2026. She has sold this property to co-accusedd Mukhtiar Singgh in good faith and in a traansparent manner. She had noo AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.04 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-499338-2026 (O&M) 3 fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of sale. No mens rea can bee attributed to hher. She had no authority to classsify "approved" or "unapproved"" areas. Mere exxistence of two property IDs forr the same property does not byy itself constituute any criminal offense. The case rests upon documentaryy evidence whicch is already in possession of tthe investigating agency. She iss ready to join the investigation. Her custodiaal interrogation is not required.. No recovery iis to be effected from her. A ccivil litigation between the co--accused and tthe complainants is pending. TThe dispute is of a civil nature.. With these brroad submissions, it is urged that she deserves to be given thee concession of bail. 5. NNotice of motion.

6. LLearned State counsel has acceptted notice of the petition. Powerr of attorney onn behalf of the complainant has also been filed. Learned Statee counsel, assissted by learned counsel for thee complainant, has vehementlyy argued that the allegations against the petitionner are serious in nature. Firstly,, the petitioner got issued a property ID for 188 Kanals of land existing in ann unapproved arrea from Municipal Committee, Cheeka, and with regard to thee same propertyy, she got another ID prepared inn the year 2026 so as to show thee same propertyy to be part of an approved areaa, and sold it to the co-accusedd Mukhtiar Sinngh with intent to cheat the complainants, who had alsoo purchased a part of the same property from ssome other vendors. It is arguedd that for condducting a proper and thoroughh investigation in the matter,, AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.04 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-499338-2026 (O&M) 4 custodial interrrogation of the petitioner is a mmust. It is, therefore, argued thatt the petition dooes not deserve to be allowed. 7. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties at considerable length.

8. TThe petitioner is alleged to have pprocured two property IDs fromm Municipal Committee, Cheeka with regard too the same property. In the firstt ID, this properrty was shown to be part of an uunapproved area, whereas in thee second ID, thiis property was shown to be lyingg in an approved area. The samee is alleged to hhave been done to cause wrongfful loss to the victims. The casee is, however, bbased on documentary evidence, and the relevant documents aree already in thhe custody of the investigatting agency. In the peculiarr circumstancess of the case, custodial interroogation of the petitioner is nott required. It iss a matter of trial as to whether the ingredients for commissionn of the offencee punishable under Section 318 (4) of the BNS are attracted inn this case or nnot? Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, thiss Court is of thee considered opinion that pre-triaal incarceration of the petitionerr is not requiredd. Even otherwise, it is a well-setttled proposition of law that pre--trial incarceratation should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Ass per the discusssion made above, the petition is allowed and the petitioner iss ordered to bee extended benefit of anticipatoory bail, subject to her joiningg investigation aand surrendering within a periood of 15 days from the date off receipt of a ccertified copy of this order andd upon doing so, she shall bee AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.04 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-499338-2026 (O&M) 5 released on baail by the Investigating Officer oon furnishing personal as well ass surety bonds to his satisfaction. 9. Itt is, however, clarified that the observations made above shalll not be construued as an expression of opinion oof this Court on the merits of thee case and shall not influence the outcome of thee trial in any manner. 10. SSince the main petition has been allowed, pending application, iff any, is rendereed infructuous. ((MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 03.09.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:-- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.04 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.