[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 30 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-59816-2025 -1-
114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-59816-2025
Date of Decision: 30.04.2026
Neeraj Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Bipin Ghai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and
Mr. Akhil Godara, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Varinder Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Bachanpreet Singh, Advocate,
for the complainant.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in a case FIR No.51 dated 11.02.2025, registered under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 427, 448, 506, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Rajendra
Park, District Gurugram.
2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case
was lodged on the statement of complainant Yajdev Yadav. It was alleged
that the complainant is the owner of a property measuring 400 square yards
in Tek Chand Nagar, Rajendra Park, Gurugram, purchased through Sale
Deed No. 9591 dated 20.11.2017 for a total consideration of Rs.63,97,500/-
from Rishi Prakash Swami. The property, initially owned by Om Prakash,
was subsequently transferred to Bhupesh Kumar Gupta, Trilok Chand
Gupta, and Satish Kumar Gupta through Sale Deed No. 5067 dated
18.09.2023, with mutation No.58890 approved. Subsequently, 200 square
yards of the land was sold to Rishi Prakash Swami via Sale Deed No. 12656
dated 01.03.2023. Additionally, the remaining 200 square yards was
entrusted to Rishi through Power of Attorney (POA) No. 788 dated
13.11.2017. Upon visiting the property, the complainant discovered that
Manisha, Kusum, Ombir and Avish Homes had unlawfully trespassed,
demolished existing structures, and commenced illegal construction on his
property. Despite demands to vacate, the accused allegedly threatened the
complainant with dire consequences, claiming ownership over the property
but they failed to produce valid title documents. The complainant further
alleged that the accused, aware of their lack of ownership, waited sometime
to see that one one objected before proceeding with the encroachment. It was
further alleged that Bhupesh Kumar Gupta, Satish Kumar Gupta and Trilok
Chand Gupta, through their purported POA holder Priyanka Lohia,
fraudulently transferred ownership rights to Deepa Kataria via Sale Deed
No. 14506 dated 04.03.2024. Rishi Parkash denied executing any such POA.
Subsequently, portions of the disputed property were sold to Manisha,
Kusum and Ombir through various sale deeds in 2024, without providing a
legitimate ownership chain. The complainant and his family were allegedly
threatened by the accused, who claimed protection from criminal elements,
thereby preventing them from asserting their legal rights. It is contended that
the accused conspired to defraud the complainant, causing wrongful loss and
unlawful gain, through fabricated documents and misrepresentation. The
complainant, having suffered financial loss and deprivation of property,
contends that the accused committed offenses under sections relating to
forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, fraud, criminal conspiracy, and
trespass. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the accused
persons. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced.
During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and hence, he
was also arrayed as an accused and resultantly, he was arrested on
15.08.2025. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Gurugram praying for grant of regular bail. However, after
hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same,
dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated
01.10.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for
grant of regular bail by way of filing the present petition.
3. It has been vehemently contended by learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously
implicated in the present case. He submits that as per the case of the
prosecution, the GPA regarding the plots in question was issued in favour of
co-accused Priyanka, who further transferred the said plots in the name of
Deepa Kataria. At this stage, it is the petitioner's wife who purchased the
plot by way of sale deed dated 26.04.2024 by making sale consideration of
Rs.22 lacs through bank transaction. It is further contended that another sale
about the second plot was registered on 20.05.2024 wherein the
consideration amount of Rs.31 lacs has been made through bank transaction
only. He submits that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser who had duly
paid the consideration amount and thus, become the bonafide owner of the
plots. To buttress his arguments, he contends that the civil suit regarding the
same plots is also pending between the parties. He contends that co-accused
Priyanka in whose favour the GPA of both these plots was issued, has
already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. He further contends that
the investigation is complete and charges are framed and now further
investigation is being conducted, thus, there is no possibility of the trial to
commence as the trial Court is awaiting the outcome of the further
investigation. It is contended that the case in hand is a magisterial trial and
the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest. He, thus, has
submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves
to be granted bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed
the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He has
submitted that the petitioner alongwith the co-accused is habitual of making
conspiracy by usurping the land of the complainant and many other similarly
situated persons. He contends that in a well hatched conspiracy, the
complainant's property had been usurped by the petitioner by showing the
sham transactions. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the present petition.
5. Learned State counsel has equally controverted the submissions
made by Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He has drawn the attention of this
Court to the status report filed. He contends that complicity of the petitioner
was duly proved during investigation who has played a crucial role in
executing the conspiracy hatched. On instructions, he submits that challan is
presented and charges are framed, however, out of total 21 prosecution
witnesses, no witness has been examined so far. He has placed on record the
custody certificate of the petitioner.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it
is deciphered that the dispute in the present case is pertaining to sale of two
plots. Evidently, GPA regarding these two plots was issued in favour of co-
accused Priyanka, who is already on anticipatory bail. Priyanka transferred
the plots in favour of Deepa Kataria and wife of the petitioner had purchased
the plot by way of sale deed executed on 26.04.2024. Sale consideration
amount of Rs.22 lacs has been paid through bank transaction. Regarding the
another plot, the sale deed was executed on 20.05.2024 and the sale
consideration amount of Rs.30 lacs was also paid through bank transaction.
It is admitted fact that civil suit regarding this property is also pending
between the parties. The investigation is already complete, charges are
framed and further investigation is already going on. The custody certificate
would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 08 months & 22
days as on 29.04.2026. It further shows that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedents.
7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the
conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both
the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficient
long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and
perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the
petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
9. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
30.04.2026 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No2
