Ashok Alias Ashok Kumar Bhatti v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:09.02.2026 Ashok @ Ashok Kumar Bhatti ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:

Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant. ...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.138 dated 07.06.2024 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Chhainsa, District Faridabad. 2.

The petitioner along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences on the allegations that in connivance with the co-accused, he had got the mutation of inheritance of land owned by the mother of the complainant sanctioned in their favour, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and cheating him. They had also executed a relinquishment deed qua the same land in favour of

-2other accused, namely, Rajender Singh, Girish Kumar and Digamber on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.

3.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 27.08.2025. Coaccused Girish Kumar has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. The subject offences are triable by the Magistrate. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Even a compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the complainant. He does not have criminal antecedents. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail.

4.

Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant has raised no serious objection, if the the petition is allowed, by affirming that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and even a petition seeking quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise is pending before this Court.

5.

Learned State counsel on the other hand has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 6.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7.

The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused is alleged to have cheated the complainant in order to deprive him of his rights in the property inherited from his mother and is also for forgery. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of the subject offences. However, the petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2025. The subject offences

-3are triable by the Magistrate. The investigation qua him stands completed. Similarly situated co-accused has been extended benefit of bail. Though, no relevance can be given to the contention that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties at this stage, however, taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, his clean antecedents, on parity and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for allowing the petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8.

It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (MANISHA BATRA) 09.02.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No