A local court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of a 26-year-old woman accused of cheating a property buyer and his brother-in-law of ₹90 lakh by allegedly concealing loans against two flats in Zirakpur.
Additional sessions judge TPS Randhawa dismissed Chahna Pangotra’s plea on Tuesday, observing that the allegations against her were serious and that the police needed to interrogate her in custody.
According to the FIR registered at Dhakoli police station on October 2, complainant Mukesh Kumar Goyal alleged that Arun Pangotra had initially offered to sell him four flats in the Blue Rise housing project at Peer Muchhalla for ₹1 crore. Goyal paid ₹20 lakh as earnest money and another ₹3 lakh for stamp papers. However, the sale deeds could not be executed because bank loans remained outstanding against the properties, the complaint stated.
Arun later offered to sell two other flats, numbered 32-C and 33-C, which he said were owned by his son, Jahan Anand Pangotra, and daughter, Chahna, respectively. The deal was settled for ₹90 lakh, according to the complaint.
Goyal alleged that he and his brother-in-law, Satish Garg, paid ₹25 lakh and ₹33 lakh through bank transactions, while ₹24 lakh was paid in cash. The sale deeds were executed in their names, but the accused did not hand over possession of the flats. The complainant later discovered that loans were outstanding against the properties, he alleged.
{{/usCountry}}Goyal alleged that he and his brother-in-law, Satish Garg, paid ₹25 lakh and ₹33 lakh through bank transactions, while ₹24 lakh was paid in cash. The sale deeds were executed in their names, but the accused did not hand over possession of the flats. The complainant later discovered that loans were outstanding against the properties, he alleged.
{{/usCountry}}Chahna’s counsel argued that she had been falsely implicated because of a monetary dispute between the complainant and her father. He also claimed that ₹25 lakh had been deposited into her bank account under coercion and transferred to another person on the same day. The counsel said the case relied on documents and that she was willing to join the investigation.
Finding custodial interrogation necessary at this stage of the investigation, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.