Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nagendr Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 2026
CRM-M-20931-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104
CRM-M-20931-2026
Decided on : 28.04.2026
Nagender Kumar . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab
assisted by ASI Raj Kumar.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name & age of FIR Date Section(s) Police District Petitioner (s) No. Station Nagender 051 29.01.2025 S. 316(2), 318(4) of Zirakpur SAS Nagar Kumar, aged BNS, 2023 Mohali 27years [S. 406, 420 of IPC]
2. After noticing the facts from the petition, on 20th April 2026, following was recorded by this Court:-
"2. First anticipatory bail petition, i.e., CRM-M-37720-2025 (P-4) was withdrawn by the petitioner, because relevant documents were not appended therewith, and therefore, liberty was granted to file the petition again.
3. Complainant - Sanjay Kumar got registered FIR with the allegation that accused - Nagender Kumar (petitioner herein) agreed to sell his shop no.19, Maya Garden City, Nagla Road, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar (Mohali) to the complainant, and for the said purpose, he had received an amount of Rs.19,26,000/-. As per agreement, total value of the shop was assessed as Rs.25,00,000/-, and thereupon, Rs.7,00,000/- in cash, Rs.10,20,000/- through RTGS and Rs.2,06,000/- has been paid through G-Pay to petitioner Nagender Kumar.
After receiving of the aforementioned amount, petitioner/accused ran away, and even stopped picking up the calls. Later on, complainant learnt that in a similar manner, petitioner/accused has played fraud with two other parties also.JAWALA RAM 2026.04.29 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-20931-2026 -2-
4. It has been contended in the petition that in fact complainant used to receive money in the bank account of the petitioner and out of the said received amount in the bank account, he used to return the amount in cash to complainant. Thus, a false case has been registered against the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner is ready to join investigation, if protected from arrest.
Thus, prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.
5. Notice of motion.
6. On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State.
7. Learned State counsel is directed to verify the following two questions:-
How many instances are there in the account statement of deposit of amount and immediate withdrawal ? What about the earlier two similar frauds committed by the petitioner ?
8. List again on 28.04.2026.
To be shown in the urgent list."
3. Learned State counsel submits that an amount of Rs.10,20,000/- was found deposited through RTGS in the account of the petitioner. It is further submitted that even prior to entering into the agreement to sell with the complainant, petitioner had already mortgaged the shop with the Bank, and thereafter, even subsequent to the present agreement, another agreement to sell was executed by the petitioner with some other person, regarding which a separate FIR has also been registered.
4. Neither there was any representation on behalf of the petitioner on the previous date of hearing, i.e., 20.04.2026, nor any one has put in appearance on his behalf today as well.
5. Dismissed for want of prosecution.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 28, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.04.29 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document