Civil Flavour, No Misuse of Liberty: P&H High Court Refuses to Cancel Anticipatory Bail in Farmhouse Project Fraud Case
Case Name: Anurag Malhotra v. State of Haryana and another
Date of Judgment: 24 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-11552-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be ordered only where the grant of bail suffers from perversity, arbitrariness or where the accused has misused the concession. In the absence of any supervening circumstance, misuse of liberty, or requirement of custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled merely because the complainant disputes the appreciation of material by the court granting bail.
Summary: The petitioner–complainant filed the present petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide order dated 19.02.2025 in FIR No. 32 dated 03.03.2024 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station DLF Phase 2, Gurugram.
The FIR was registered against M/s Goldkiest Developers Private Limited and its Directors/office bearers on allegations that respondent No. 2 and other co-accused induced the complainant and other buyers to purchase agricultural land/farmhouses by falsely representing that the project was fully approved and by producing forged approvals and documents. It was alleged that forged Aks-Sizra and site plans were annexed with sale deeds and that the accused had assured existence of 11 karam and 7 karam passages, though no valid passage existed on ground. It was further alleged that no gift deed (Hibbanama) was executed in favour of the Gram Panchayat, that no proper approval for carving out farmhouses had been obtained, and that the complainant suffered financial loss after demolition of construction by authorities.
The petitioner contended that respondent No. 2 played a pivotal role in the alleged conspiracy, was a signatory to the sale deed of a farm unit measuring 19 kanals sold for ₹1.26 crore, and actively participated in forging revenue records and site plans. It was argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the modus operandi and identify other persons involved. According to the petitioner, the court granting anticipatory bail had failed to properly appreciate the gravity of allegations and the specific role of respondent No. 2.
The State, in its status report, submitted that respondent No. 2 had joined the investigation and was not required for further custodial interrogation. Respondent No. 2, in his reply, asserted that he had executed the sale deed only as GPA holder of one of the Directors and was not the owner of the land. It was contended that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, arising out of terms recorded in registered sale deeds which described the land as agricultural and sold on “as is where is” basis. It was further pointed out that the petitioner had purchased the land through multiple registered sale deeds after due diligence and had even repurchased part of the same land from another buyer at a higher price, undermining the allegation of deception.
The High Court examined the legal principles governing cancellation of bail, referring to Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana (2020) 2 SCC 743, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, and Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349. It reiterated that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail and can be ordered only where the grant of bail suffers from serious infirmity, perversity, or where the accused has misused the concession.
On facts, the Court found that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had considered the nature of accusations, contents of sale deeds, and the role attributed to respondent No. 2 while granting anticipatory bail. The controversy primarily related to alleged assurance regarding common passage and non-execution of gift deed, which, at this stage, appeared to have substantial civil flavour though criminal allegations were under investigation.
It was also undisputed that respondent No. 2 had joined investigation and, as per the State’s stand, was not required for further custodial interrogation. No material was placed before the Court to show that he had influenced witnesses, tampered with evidence, or attempted to evade the process of law. In the absence of any supervening circumstance or misuse of liberty, the extraordinary power of cancellation could not be invoked. A different possible view on the same material did not render the bail order perverse.
Decision: The petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed as devoid of merit.