Didar Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.202 Date of Decision: 18.04.2026 DIDAR SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 80 dated 16.02.2026, registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 61(2) of BNS (erstwhile Sections 420, 468, 467 & 120A&B IPC) at Police Station Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR has been registered on the allegations of illegal sale/purchase of HSVP land situated in Khasra No. 485 of village Tejli, Sector-15, U.E., Jagadhri. It is alleged that the said land already stood vested with HSVP and possession thereof had been handed over to HSVP. The petitioner is stated to have entered into an agreement to purchase the said land from co-accused Kehar Singh and certain documents including agreement to sell and power of attorney have been executed in this regard. It is further alleged that the documents relied

upon by the petitioner are forged and fabricated and the matter requires thorough investigation.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that HSVP is already in possession of the land in question and a board of HSVP is lying at the spot, thus no question of sale by the petitioner arises at all. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of any unauthorized land of HSVP and no notice in this regard has ever been issued to or received by the petitioner from HSVP. Hence, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. 4.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has filed the status report and submitted that during the course of investigation it has been found that the petitioner has committed forgery and cheating. It is submitted that the petitioner has forged a full payment agreement to sell dated 13.06.2018 showing payment of Rs. 40 lakhs to one Kehar Singh, whereas no such account exists. It is further submitted that there is no such person in existence with the identity of Kehar Singh and, therefore, the petitioner has indulged in cheating and forgery.

5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. A copy of the disputed agreement to sell has been placed on record, which shows one Kehar Singh as the seller and the petitioner Didar Singh as the purchaser. However, as per the stand of the State, there is no such person existing in the name of Kehar Singh and no such account is in existence. Moreover, a huge amount of Rs. 48 lakhs is involved in the

transaction. In these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be necessary for proper investigation of the case. 6.

Accordingly, the present petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

7.

However, it is clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 8.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 18.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No