Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 3722 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2026

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                           AT CHANDIGARH
           105-1
                                                          CRM-M--21104-2026(O&M)
                                                          Date of decision
                                                                  decision: 23.04.2026

            Dinesh Kumar Sharma                                               ...Petitioner(s)

                                                      VERSUS

            State of Punjab                                                    ...Respondent(s)

           CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
           Present :- Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal,
                                        Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
                                                                 petitioner(s).

                                Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab
                                                          Punjab.
                                *****
           VINOD S. BHARDWAJ,
                    BHARDWAJ J. (Oral)

This first petition has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to

the petitioner(s) titioner(s) in case bearing FIR No.134 dated 22.10.2021 registered

under Sections 420, 120-B B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [now Sections

318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] and Section 82 of

the Registration Act, 1908 at Police Station Nayagaon, District SAS Nagar

Mohali.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one Harbans

Kaur was the owner of the property in dispute qua which a General Power of

Attorney dated 23.11.2004 was executed by her in favour of Meghraj. He

further contends that the aforesaid Meghraj eventually executed a Special

Power of Attorney dated dated 25.05.2007 in favour of the petitioner herein. It is

further contended that the petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of his

wife-Anju Anju on 09.08.2021. It is further contended that the FIR was however

got registered on an allegation that Harbans Kau Kaur had cancelled the GPA

executed in favour of Meghraj on 28.07.2021, hence, the sale deed by the

105-1 CRM-M-21104-2026(O&M)

petitioner herein could not have been executed on 09.08.2021 as the Power

of Attorney executed in favour of the General Power of Attorney Meghraj

ceased to exist. He further contends that Meghraj has already been granted

concession of anticipatory bail. He further contends that the entire case is

based on documentary evidence and besides, the FIR pertains to the year

2021 and at no point in time, the arrest of the petitioner was ever sought to

be necessary, thus custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

3. Mr. Mohinder Kumar, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of

the complainant and files his Power of Attorney. The same is taken on

record. He contends that as a matter of fact, the petitioner-accused person

tried to enter into possession of his land which is adjacent to the alleged

property and that the documents in question are forged. He refers to the

order dated 10.01.2023, whereby the second petition for grant of anticipatory

bail bearing CRM-M-1139-2023 filed by Anju Sharma, who is wife of the

petitioner herein, had been dismissed by this Court.

4. Learned State Counsel contends that as a matter of fact Harbans

Kaur i.e. the owner of the property got recorded her statement and also

submitted an affidavit to the effect that she has no grievance against the

petitioner herein. He further contends that, at best, Harbans Kaur alone could

claim herself to be a victim in the present case since the property in question

belonged to her and since she has no further grievance, the complainant-

Jaswant Singh, who is a neighbour cannot espouse the cause of Harbans

Kaur. He further contends that the aforesaid fact did not exist at the time

when the said anticipatory bail bearing CRM-M-1139-2023 was heard and

decided on 10.01.2023.

105-1 CRM-M-21104-2026(O&M)

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and respective arguments advanced by them and also noticing the

contention of the State that Harbans Kaur herself i.e. owner of the property

has suffered a statement to the effect that she has no grievance against the

petitioner herein and has also submitted an affidavit in this regard, hence, it

may give rise to an arguable issue with respect to the commission of offence

under Section 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The

petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and join the

investigation, whereupon the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail

to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer, subject to the

conditions as under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

(BNSS) of 2023.

7. It is made clear that in pursuance to and in compliance with this

order, the petitioner does not cooperate with the investigating agency, the

investigating agency would be liberty to move an appropriate application for

cancellation of bail.

                                                              (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
           23.04.2026                                                 JUDGE
           Sumit Gusain
                     Whether speaking/reasoned :        Yes/No
                     Whether reportable        :        Yes/No