Nizam v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.207 Case No. : CRM-M-27175-2025 Decided On : September 17, 2025 Nizam ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana and another ....

Respondents CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * * Present :

Mr. S. K. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P. K. Garg, DAG, Haryana.

* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

:

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0120 dated 22.04.2024, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad.

The brief facts of the case in hand are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of written complaint made by Shriram Aggarwal and Mohan Singh, alleging therein that both of them were allured by the petitioner along with his co-accused to buy 24 bighas of land, which was acquired by the Yamuna Development Authority, by saying that they had not received its compensation yet and they would get the said land released as they were having strong links to get the work done. Believing their words to be true, the complainants feel prey and agreed to purchase the said land.

So, an amount of Rs.50 lakh was paid as earnest money. Besides, Rs.60 lakh were also paid to get the land released, out of which Rs.38 lakh were paid in cash and Rs.22 lakh were transferred in the accounts of accused persons and their relatives. Additionally, an amount of Rs.8 lakh was also transferred in the account of the petitioner Nizam and his relatives, but the accused persons did not get the said land released, as promised, nor returned the amount of the complainants. When the money was demanded back, two cheques, of Rs.22 lakhs each, were issued to both the complainants but both the cheques were dishonoured. Thereafter, all the accused threatened both the complainants with dire consequences, in case they demanded their money back.

With all the aforesaid allegations, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner as well as other co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no role has been attributed to the petitioner in the present FIR. He had never induced the complainants. To show his bona fide, he has also transferred an amount of Rs.5 lakh in the account of complainant Shriram Aggarwal and has compromised the matter with him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced in the Court statement of Account of aforesaid complainant Shriram Aggarwal and his statement recorded in this regard. Learned counsel further urged that the petitioner is not required for any interrogation and no recovery is to be effected from him.

He is ready and willing to join the investigation and prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail petition and has contended that the main allegations against the

present petitioner are that he had received a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in his account as his share, out of total amount of Rs.50 lakhs. All the accused had received total amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- from the complainants. Though he has transferred amount of his share i.e. Rs.5 lakhs, in the account of complinant Shriram Aggarwal, but the remaining amount is yet to be recovered. So, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and proper investigation and he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.

Heard.

As per the allegations in the present FIR, all the accused fraudulently received a huge amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- from the complainants on the pretext of selling a big chunk of land, which was ultimately neither sold to them, nor their money was returned. However, it is admitted position that the present petitioner had received Rs.5,00,000/- in his account and had also returned the same to one of the complainants namely Shriram Aggarwal. So, now nothing is to be recovered from him. Moreover, perusal of the documents, produced by learned counsel for the petitioner today in Court reveals that the petitioner has compromised the matter with the complainant - Shriram Aggarwal and his statement has been placed on record to the effect that now no dues were pending against the present petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered

to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.

September 17, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.