Kunal Arora And Anr vs. State Of Punjab

The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Deepak Sharma alleging that he had let out his property to petitioner No.1 in May 2019 on a monthly rent of ₹60,000/- besides liability towards electricity charges, property tax and other allied expenses. According to the complainant, rent was regularly paid till July 2022, whereafter the petitioners defaulted in payment of rent and other charges, resulting in an outstanding liability of approximately 29,90,000/-. It is further alleged that upon making inquiries, the complainant came to know that the petitioners, in conspiracy with each other, had prepared forged rent agreements dated 29.09.2020 and 28.08.2021 purportedly executed by the complainant and had utilized the said documents before the GST Department for obtaining registration. The complainant asserts that no such agreements were ever executed by him and that the only rent deed executed between the parties was dated 14.12.2023. It is alleged that when confronted, the petitioners failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and that the present criminal proceedings have been initiated with an oblique motive to pressurize them to vacate the tenanted premises. It is contended that the dispute essentially arises out of a long- standing landlord-tenant relationship, the possession of the premises by the petitioners since May 2019 being undisputed. It is further argued that the rent agreements dated 29.09.2020 and 28.08.2021 were in fact executed by the complainant himself and remained in his possession. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.

Upon notice, learned State counsel appears and seeks time to file a detailed status report. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.08.04 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that no rent agreements dated 29.09.2020 and 28.08.2021 were ever executed by the complainant. However, on a specific query put by this Court, it is fairly conceded that the petitioners have remained in possession of the premises since May 2019. It is further submitted that, according to the complainant, the only rent deed executed between the parties is the one dated 14.12.2023. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds that the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and the possession of the premises by the petitioners since May 2019 are admitted facts. The principal allegation revolves around the genuineness or otherwise of certain rent agreements allegedly utilized by the petitioners before the GST authorities. Whether the said documents are genuine or forged, and the circumstances under which they came into existence, are matters requiring investigation and examination of documentary evidence.

At this stage, the controversy appears to arise substantially out of an existing contractual and tenancy relationship between the parties. The allegations are primarily document-based in nature and the relevant material is capable of being collected through investigation without necessarily subjecting the petitioners to custodial interrogation. The petitioners have expressed their willingness to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency. No material has been pointed out at this stage to indicate that the petitioners are likely to abscond, tamper with evidence or evade the process of law.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to grant interim protection to the petitioners till the next date of hearing.

Adjourned to 04.08.2026 for filing of status report.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:- NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.08.04 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh

Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit Assistant Commissioner of Police (North), Ludhiana in Court today, which is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. He (on instructions from ASI Balkar Singh) has submitted that the petitioners have joined investigation but his custodial interrogation is required, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the petitioners having joined the investigation and their custodial interrogation being sought for by the State, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petition is allowed and the order dated 11.06.2026 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.08.04 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh

This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioners indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioners violate any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.