Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar dismissed two anticipatory bail petitions arising from a common set of allegations involving impersonation and fraudulent registration of a property owned by a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). The Court held that the petitioners were active participants in a broader conspiracy aimed at usurping property rights and that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the full extent of the alleged fraud. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, to proceed with disciplinary action against one of the petitioners in accordance with the official communication already issued.

 
The matter concerned two anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by two individuals accused in a criminal case registered under FIR No.04 dated 27.02.2025. The case was registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, along with Sections 81 read with Section 34(3) and 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Husband In Dowry And Cruelty Case | Says Allegations Were Vague And Bereft Of Specifics | Misuse Of Section 498A Cannot Be A Tool For Harassment 

According to the FIR, a surprise inspection was conducted on 21.02.2025 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana (West), during which irregularities were discovered concerning a sale deed dated 11.02.2025. The sale deed pertained to a property measuring 14 kanals located in Village Noorpur Bet-2, allegedly sold by one Deep Singh to Deepak Goyal. However, it was later revealed that the individual who executed the sale deed impersonated Deep Singh, who is an NRI residing in the United States.

During the execution of the sale deed, Amit Gaur appeared in place of the purchaser Deepak Goyal, while Advocate Gurcharan Singh Marwaha prepared the document. The deed was certified and executed by various individuals, including Baghel Singh (Nambardar), who identified the impersonator as Deep Singh, and other witnesses such as Raghbir Singh. It was further alleged that the photograph and identity of one of the purported witnesses, Sham Sunder, were forged, with someone else signing and affixing their photograph in his place.

The sale deed was submitted to and approved by the Sub-Registrar Jagsir Singh and Registration Clerk Krishan Gopal, without verifying the discrepancies in identity and witness signatures. Technical reports and an expert opinion later confirmed that the registration was carried out fraudulently with the involvement of several parties.

The petitioner in CRM-M-23740-2025 contended that he had no knowledge of any impersonation and that he merely identified the individual presented to him based on Aadhar and PAN card documents. He claimed to be a whistle-blower, having filed a complaint on 14.02.2025, and argued that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The petitioner asserted he had no financial interest in the transaction.

The petitioner in CRM-M-19545-2025 raised similar contentions, denying any role in the alleged fraud.

The State, however, opposed the petitions, arguing that the accused were part of a larger network that targeted properties owned by NRIs. The impersonator Gurpreet Singh, during custodial interrogation, disclosed that forged identity documents had been arranged by co-accused Raghuvir Singh and Gurjot Singh. Gurpreet Singh also revealed that he had received Rs. 60,000 for his role. The property in question, valued in crores, was allegedly sold for Rs. 30.20 lakhs, through cheques that were never encashed.

Further, the CCTV footage from the Sub-Registrar’s office showed the petitioners and other co-accused present during the execution and registration of the sale deed. The revenue records, the sale deed draft, and expert reports corroborated the role of each accused, including the identification of the impersonator by the Nambardar and the approval of the sale deed by the Sub-Registrar.

The Court was also informed that multiple criminal cases were pending against petitioner Baghel Singh and that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, suspending him from his role as Nambardar.

The Court stated: “The facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicates that the petitioners and other co-accused are part of a larger conspiracy of usurping the properties of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).”

On the valuation and the fraudulent transaction, the Court observed: “The value of 14 kanals of land is worth several crore of rupees and the same has been sold by producing impersonating for only Rs.30.20 lacs out of which, the cheques of Rs.30 lacs were never presented for encashment.”

Referring to the procedural irregularities, the Court recorded: “It is strange that Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of sale deed allowed the presentation of cheques instead of demand drafts.”

Commenting on the involvement of the petitioners, the Court noted: “The petitioner-Bagel Singh has identified the impersonator as the seller and owner of the property in question.”

The Court also remarked on the broader implications: “This case is yet another example of a disturbing trend that is steadily gaining ground, wherein unscrupulous individuals take advantage of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), particularly those who are unable to visit India frequently or manage their properties here.”

In its assessment of systemic abuse, the Court stated: “The scale of this deceit is symptomatic of systemic abuse, where absence is weaponized and legal safeguards are routinely undermined.”

The Court concluded: “These offences are rooted in a breach of trust and stand on a different pedestal than conventional criminal offences in terms of criminal jurisprudence as they not only impact the personal and financial security of the victims but also have cascading effects on public trust in the real estate ecosystem.”

Also Read: Punjab And Haryana High Court Grants Bail In Fake Security Agency Case | Warns Against Rampant Use Of Term Bouncer Which Strips Security Guards Of Dignity And Empathy

The Court found that the petitioners were not entitled to anticipatory bail, citing their alleged active involvement in the offence and, in the case of petitioner Baghel Singh, a record of previous criminal conduct.

The petitions were consequently dismissed. The Court further directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, to proceed with the disciplinary action already initiated against Baghel Singh, as referenced in Annexure P-5, and to submit a compliance report.

Additionally, it ordered that a copy of the judgment be placed on the file of the connected case.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Karan Bansal, Advocate; Mr. Raghav Puggal, Advocate; Mr. Karan Puggal, Advocate

For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab

For the Complainant: Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate; Mr. Manan Khetarpal, Advocate

Case Title: Bagel Singh v. State of Punjab; Raghuvir Singh v. State of Punjab

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:066894

Case Number: CRM-M-23740-2025 & CRM-M-19545-2025

Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

[Read/Download order]