Allowed¶3

Jeetandar Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2026CRM-M/3877/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Mandeep Pannu, J.; decision 23.03.2026; oral order confirming (making absolute) interim anticipatory bail dated 23.01.2026. Grounds: petitioner joined investigation; civil litigation between parties already pending; agreements to sell executed without disclosing pending civil suit regarding the property; dispute essentially civil, given colour of criminal case; possession delivered to other party; mere non-return of earnest money not a ground to refuse anticipatory bail; earnest-money liability left to competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 23.01.2026 made absolute (confirmed). ¶3

Jeetandar Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Sr. No.

¶3

Date of Decision: 23.03.2026

...Petitioner

Versus

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶8

Present:Mr. Angel Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

¶10

¶11

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.01.2026, wherein it was noticed that, as per the prosecution case, the petitioner had entered into several agreements to sell with the complainant without disclosing that civil litigation was already pending in respect of the property in question. It was also recorded that, as per the version of the petitioner, the dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature, which has been given the colour of a criminal case by the complainant. Considering the said facts and circumstances, the petitioner was ordered to be released on interim anticipatory bail.

¶13

Today, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation; however, he has not returned the earnest money. It is, however, not disputed that civil litigation between the parties is already pending, and the question as to whether the petitioner is liable to return the

¶14

ANU 2026.03.24 10:06 I am the author of this document Chandigarh

¶15

earnest money or not is a matter to be adjudicated by the competent civil court. Mere non-return of the earnest money, in such circumstances, cannot be made a ground to deny the concession of anticipatory bail, particularly when the petitioner has already joined the investigation and the possession has also been delivered to the other party.

¶16

In view of the above, the order dated 23.01.2026 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

¶17

¶18

23.03.2026 Anu

¶19

	(MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶20

ANU 2026.03.24 10:06 I am the author of this document Chandigarh

Jeetandar Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetandar Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Vs State of Haryana

Amrinder Singh Alias Sabi Touri Vs State of Punjab

Tejinder Arora and Others Vs Monohar Lal Passi and Another

Vikram Vs State of Haryana and Others

Daleep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurwinder Singh Alias Gaggi Vs State of Punjab and Another