Abhinav Sharma v. State of Haryana

IN Abhinav S

State of H

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1seeking g 2023 in F under Sec Gurugram

¶2the comp with the p a resident that the considera payments

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

Sharma

V/s Haryana

decision: 20.07.2026 Uploading : 20.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Ms. Pia M Bhargava, Advoca (through Video Conference). Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocat ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest b FIR No.0248 dated 03.09.2025 ctions 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 o m. The prosecution case, as set-lainant had entered into an Ag petitioner and his wife regarding tial property situated in Sector-5 complainant had paid a subs ation which includes the earnest made at the insistence of th ant, despite receiving the agree

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-35367-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL ate for the petitioner .

. , Senior DAG Haryana. te for the complainant.

filed on behalf of the petition bail under Section 482 of BNS registered for offences punisha of IPC at Police Station Sector -out in the petition in hand, is t greement to Sell dated 05.08.20 the purchase of the second floor 56, Gurugram. It has been alleg stantial amount towards the s money as also subsequent furth he accused persons. As per ed amount, the petitioner and

ner SS, ble 56, hat r of ged sale her wife rep demandin further all of the com the comp would be execution belonging removed suit for sp execution property h further al acted in c investigat allegedly details/cre FIR came

¶3is purely c has furthe by filing nature of the Agree

peatedly avoided execution o ng additional amounts on one leged that an application seekin mplainant was subsequently can plainant was kept under the im e completed but the accused p n of the sale-deed. It has bee ant had taken the possession gs therein, the accused person his articles which necessitated t pecific performance which was n proceedings, the complainan had already been transferred to t leged that the petitioner, his w connivance with each other and tion, it had surfaced that the tr cancelled through a fake e-mai edentials of the complainant. On e to be registered. Learned counsel for the r has been falsely implicated into civil in nature arising out of an A er iterated that the complainant h a suit for specific performanc the controversy. According to l ement to Sell, the complainant w

of the sale-deed and continu pretext or the other. It has be g permission for transfer in favo ncelled without his knowledge a mpression that the sale transacti persons intentionally delayed en further alleged that after n of the property and kept ns forcibly dispossessed him a the complainant to institute a ci decreed in his favour. During nt allegedly discovered that third party(s). The complainant h wife and the subsequent purchas cheated him. During the course ansfer permission application w il purportedly created by using n these set of allegations, the inst petitioner has iterated that o the FIR in question as the disp Agreement to Sell. Learned coun has already availed the civil reme ce which clearly reflects the ci learned counsel, as per the terms was required to pay the balance s

ued our his ivil sers e of was ant ute nsel edy ivil s of considera despite re failed to f contract a Registrar further co their face criminal b document agency an been furth investigat prosecutio of these su

¶4affidavit Gurugram to the p during the under:

ation and get the sale-deed execu epeated extensions granted at the fulfill his contractual obligations r has always been ready and w and has even marked his prese on the scheduled date for execu ontended that the allegations con value, do not disclose the comm breach of trust or forgery. Furth tary evidence which is already nd no recovery is required to be her contended that the petitione tion as and when required an r absconding from the process on evidence in case he is enlarg ubmissions, the grant of anticipa Referring to status report of Vishal, HPS, Assistant C m, learned State counsel has opp etitioner by arguing that the r are grave, serious and suppor e course of investigation. The r "13. Role of the petition Abhinav Sharma in the commi connivance with other co-acc the complainant credentials

uted within the stipulated period b e request of the complainant, he h s. According to learned counsel, willing to perform his part of ence before the office of the Su ution of the sale-deed. It has be ntained in the FIR, even if taken mission of any offence of cheatin ermore, the entire case is based y available with the investigati effected from the petitioner. It h er is ready and willing to join nd there is no likelihood of of justice or tampering with ged on pre-arrest bail. On streng atory bail is entreated for. dated 10.07.2026 by way of Commissioner of Police, HQ-I posed the grant of anticipatory b allegations levelled against rted by specific material collec relevant part of the reply reads ner: The role attributed to the petitio ission of the present offence is that, he cused had created a fake email by us and a fake mail was sent to the HS

but ub-n at ng, on gth an III, bail as oner e in sing

learned St towards t execution competen transferre rights of t has surfac the transfe Learned S and for u offence. A

¶5submissio that the a as the m induceme counsel,

Department cancelling the complainant himself, there complainant and wrongful persons. Further, the petitio present case, evaded the pro found available at his kno conducted by the investigating Raising submissions in ta tate counsel has further iterated ant to enter into the transaction, the sale consideration and the n of the sale-deed. It has been ant having obtained a decree f nt Civil Court, the petitioner, in d the property to third parties w the complainant. Furthermore, du ced that a fake e-mail ID was all fer permission cancelled without State counsel has emphasized tha r is necessary for recovery and unearthing the complete conspira Accordingly, the dismissal of the Learned counsel appearing ons in tandem with the State cou llegations cannot be termed as m material on record prima facie ent from the very inception of the the complainant entered into

transfer permission allegedly by eby causing wrongful loss to gain to himself and the co-accu oner has, since the registration of ocess of investigation and has not b own addresses despite repeated ra g agency." andem with the aforesaid rep that the petitioner has induced received the amount(s) in questi ereafter intentionally avoided further submitted that despite for specific performance from n connivance with the co-accus with the intention of defeating uring the course of investigation egedly created and used for getti the knowledge of the complaina at the custodial interrogation of examination of electronic devic acy behind the commission of e instant petition is prayed for. for the complainant has rais unsel. Learned counsel has itera merely civil in nature at this sta discloses dishonest intention a e transaction. According to learn an Agreement to Sell with

used aids ply, ed, n, it ant. ces sed age, the substa Despite re execution pretext o which ult However, defeat the the allega of the peti

¶6gone throu

¶7allegation levelled i merely gi entered in but the a breach of receiving intentiona permissio the prope these alle

r after verifying the ownership d antial amount(s) towards the sal eceiving the said amounts, the p n of the sale-deed and kept dem or another. Learned counsel ant was compelled to institute a timately decreed in his favou , during the execution procee r has already transferred the pro e lawful rights of the complaina ations and the active role attribu ition in hand is prayed for. I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c As per the material availab ns have been levelled against in the FIR, at this stage, prima iving rise to a civil dispute. Th nto an Agreement to Sell and ci allegations prima facie shows f contract. The complainant h the substantial amount(s) ally avoided the execution of on cancelled without his knowle erty to the third party(s). In the gations prima facie disclose ele

documents of the property and p le consideration from time to tim petitioner continuously avoided manding additional money on o has further contended that civil suit for specific performan r by the competent Civil Cou edings, it came to light that operty to third parties in order ant. Considering the seriousness uted to the petitioner, the dismis unsel for the rival parties and ha case. ble on record, indubitably, serio the petitioner. The allegatio facie cannot be brushed aside hough the parties have admitted ivil proceedings were also initia the allegations are beyond m has specifically alleged that af from him, the petitioner h f the sale-deed; got the trans edge and subsequently transferr considered opinion of this Cou ements of deception and fraudul

aid me. one nce urt. r to s of ssal ave ous ons as dly ere fter sfer red urt, conduct w during th person wh Furthermo created a permissio allegation considere the involv requires f prima fac considere cannot be consequen that the d stage. I transactio dealings w prima fac inception. account o from the and cann anticipato required

which require thorough invest he course of investigation indi ho was dealing with the compl ore, the investigating agency h a fake e-mail and used it for on application. At this stage, n that after receiving the sub ant, the property has been tran d opinion of this Court, the pos vement of electronic evidence ca further investigation. The amou cie indicates the seriousness an d opinion of this Court, the eco e treated at par with ordinary o nces on public trust. The plea dispute is purely civil in nature d In the considered opinion of on pertains to sale and purcha would not, by itself, take away cie disclose dishonest inducem . The question(s) as to wheth of a bona fide dispute or wheth very beginning is a matter whi not be conclusively adjudicated ory bail. At the stage of anticip to examine the nature and gra

tigation. The material collec icates that the petitioner was lainant throughout the transacti has alleged that the petitioner h r the cancellation of the trans this Court cannot overlook bstantial consideration from nsferred to other person(s). In ssibility of a larger conspiracy a annot be ruled out, at this stage, a unt involved is substantial wh nd gravity of the offence. In nomic offences of such magnitu offences as they have far-reachi raised on behalf of the petition does not persuade this Court at t this Court, merely because ase of land or involves moneta y the criminality if the allegatio ment and deception right from t her the transaction has failed er the intention to deceive exis ch requires thorough investigati d upon in a petition for grant patory bail, the Court is primar avity of accusations and the r

on. sfer ich ude ner this ary ons on of rily attributed the petitio of the pet may hamp

¶8this stage falsely im instant ca and mater this stage active par alleged a stage. It i of anticip individual with the accused; t impact of material o investigat Thus, it i would ne Anil Sha Supreme

d to the accused. The exact natur oner requires deeper investigatio itioner may be essential. The gra per the investigation. Furthermore, no cause nay p e, from which it can be deciph mplicated into the present FIR. ase, the allegations against the pe rial placed on record, are neithe e, the material collected during i rticipation and a specific role a cts of cheating and conspiracy is befitting to mention here that patory bail, the Court has to l rights and protecting societal in magnitude and nature of the o the need for fair and free investig f such alleged iniquities on the on record to hold that prima fac r. The material which has com tion, appear to establish a reas s not appropriate to grant antic cessarily cause impediment in arma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 19 Court held as under : (SCC p. 18

re and extent of the involvement on for which custodial interrogati ant of anticipatory bail at this sta plausible cause has been shown, hered that the petitioner has be It goes without saying that in etitioner, as emerging from the F er vague nor general in nature. investigation prima facie disclo attributable to the petitioner in y. The investigation is at nasc while considering a plea for gr equilibrate between safeguardi nterests. The Court ought to reck offence; the role attributed to gation as also the deeper and wid society. At this stage, there is cie case is not made out against me on record and the prelimina sonable basis for the accusatio cipatory bail to the petitioner, as effective investigation. In State 997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Hon' 89, para 6)

t of age , at FIR At ses ent rant kon der ary ons. s it e v.

¶9offence a thorough milieu of

10.

(i)

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

July 20, 2 Ajay

"6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orie well-ensconced with a favourable a case like this, effective inter tremendous advantage in disinter materials which would have interrogation would elude if the protected and insulated by a pre interrogated. Very often interroga a mere ritual. The argument tha with the danger of the person b need not be countenanced, for, su accused in all criminal cases. Th police officers would conduct th would not conduct themselves as o In view of the gravity of t and the requirement of the cust investigation, this Court is of r does not deserve the concession the case in hand. In view of the prevenient rati The instant petition is devoid Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

2026

ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ented than questioning a suspect who e order under Section 438 of the Code rrogation of a suspected person is rring many useful informations and a been concealed. Success in s suspected person knows that he is w e-arrest bail order during the time he ation in such a condition would reduce at the custodial interrogation is frau being subjected to third-degree meth uch an argument can be advanced by he Court has to presume that responsi hemselves in task of disintering offen offenders." the allegations, the nature of todial interrogation for a fair a f the considered opinion that n of anticipatory bail in the fact iocination, it is ordained thus: d of merits and is hereby dismiss hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

n is o is e. In s of also uch well e is e to ught ods y all ible nces ual