Avtar Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21864-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.05.2026 Avtar Singh ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present:

Mr. Surjit Singh Swaich, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral) This petition for pre-arrest bail is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.133 dated 09.11.2023, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 318 of BNS), Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

2.

Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Rachhpal Singh', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by the complainant that with regard to sale of a house a deal was struck between him and 'Avtar Singh' (petitioner herein), and that as per above mentioned deal, an agreement to sell, dated 18.02.2022 was executed by the petitioner in favour of complainant. According to complainant the total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.24,00,000/-, and that the entire sale consideration was paid by

him to the petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that as per contract between him and the petitioner, the possession of the house was to be handed over by the petitioner to the complainant upon the completion of the house, but the petitioner failed to do so, and thus, he has been cheated. 3.

It is the case of prosecution that in view of above mentioned complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4.

Short reply has already been filed by the learned State Counse. The same be taken on record.

5.

Heard.

6.

This second petition for anticipatory bail has been filed on the ground that dispute between the parties is of civil nature and with regard to that, already a quashing petition has been filed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the sole ground on which the former petition, for anticipatory bail, was dismissed was that that the past conduct of the petitioner was such that he was ineligible for the benefit of anticipatory bail, as he was declared a proclaimed offender. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, now the petitioner has already been granted bail in those cases, wherein he was declared a proclaimed offender. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in view of abovementioned changed circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to maintain this second petition for anticipatory bail.

7.

The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments.

8.

The record has been perused carefully.

9.

A perusal of record shows that in paragraphs No.9 and 10 of the order dated 09.03.2026, following observations were recorded:-

10.

In view of abovementioned observations, it is apparent that the petition for anticipatory bail, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed solely on the ground that his past conduct was not clean, as he had been declared a proclaimed offender. The abovementioned past conduct still exists, being part of the history. The abovementioned conduct can't be ignored despite the fact that in those two cases, wherein he was declared proclaimed offender, he has been accorded the benefit of bail by the Court. 11.

Thus, taking into consideration the abovementioned fact, it is hereby observed that no new ground for maintaining the present petition, which is second petition, is made out, and that the present petition being devoid of merits deserves dismissal.

12.

As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present petition is hereby dismissed, accordingly.

13.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 18.05.2026 Vinod Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No