IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 237 Gurpreet Singh @Johnu State of Punjab [ CORAM: Present : SURYA PARTAP SINGH petitioner under Section 483 of 2023’. It has been filed 27.02.2025 Bharatiya Sections 82, 81, 34(3) of Registration Act, 1908, Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. 2. second petition filed by the petitioner and the dismissed, vide order dated petitioner was dismissed on merits. Thus, the present second petition can be considered only if the petitioner i substantial change in the attending circumstances. CRM-M-34685-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurpreet Singh @Johnu VERSUS State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Mr. Mikhail Kad, Advocate f Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for bail is the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed with regard to a case arising out of 27.02.2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ Sections 82, 81, 34(3) of Registration Act, 1908, Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that this is nd petition filed by the petitioner and the dismissed, vide order dated 06.11.2025 petitioner was dismissed on merits. Thus, the present second petition can be considered only if the petitioner is successful in showing substantial change in the attending circumstances. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34685-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.07.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. ***** the second petition, filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita case arising out of FIR No.04 dated 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ and Sections 82, 81, 34(3) of Registration Act, 1908, Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that this is nd petition filed by the petitioner and the first petition for bail was 06.11.2025. The first petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits. Thus, the present second petition can be successful in showing that there has been substantial change in the attending circumstances. (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of and Sections 82, 81, 34(3) of Registration Act, 1908, Police Station Economic At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that this is was The first petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits. Thus, the present second petition can be that there has been GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.24 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. communication by the Senior Superintendent of Poli Wing, Ludhiana. As per prosecution letter, when enquiries were made from Sub Registrar Registration Clerk Ludhiana (West), it was dated 11.02.2025 was executed with regard to a plot ad kanals, and that the above else, by impersonating himself as ‘Deep abovementioned plot. 4. information, formal FIR up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, it was the petitioner was the person Singh’, owner of the plot 5. 6. respondent with. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. the State. However, petition. 7. 8. the first petition for bail CRM-M-34685-2026 (O&M) 2 The abovementioned FIR came into being communication by the ‘Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Economic Offence Wing, Ludhiana. As per prosecution, while acting upon the abovementioned letter, when enquiries were made from Sub Registrar Registration Clerk- ‘Krishan Gopal’, in the Office Ludhiana (West), it was revealed that the sale deed No. dated 11.02.2025 was executed with regard to a plot ad kanals, and that the abovementioned sale deed was executed by somebody by impersonating himself as ‘Deep mentioned plot. It is the case of prosecution that in view of abovementioned information, formal FIR of this case was lodged and up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, it was the petitioner was the person, who had impersonated himself as , owner of the plot, and signed the sale deed as such. Notice of motion. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. . However, the learned State Counsel has orally oppose Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner the first petition for bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 06.11.2025, 2 The abovementioned FIR came into being in response to a Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab’ to the ce, Vigilance Bureau, Economic Offence while acting upon the abovementioned letter, when enquiries were made from Sub Registrar-‘Jagsir Singh Sran’ and , in the Office of Sub-Registrar revealed that the sale deed No.2024-25/101/1/20859 dated 11.02.2025 was executed with regard to a plot ad-measuring mentioned sale deed was executed by somebody by impersonating himself as ‘Deep Singh’, the owner of the It is the case of prosecution that in view of abovementioned was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, it was found that who had impersonated himself as ‘Deep and signed the sale deed as such. . I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of f notice upon the State is hereby dispensed The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the No formal reply has been filed by the learned State Counsel has orally opposed the present learned counsel for the petitioner that filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 06.11.2025, in response to a to the ce, Vigilance Bureau, Economic Offence while acting upon the abovementioned and Registrar 25/101/1/20859 14 mentioned sale deed was executed by somebody Singh’, the owner of the It is the case of prosecution that in view of abovementioned investigation taken found that Deep appears on behalf of f notice upon the State is hereby dispensed The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the o formal reply has been filed by present that filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 06.11.2025, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.24 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and that from the date of dismissal of first bail petition than eight months, there is no significant progress in the trial. 9. abovementioned arguments 10. 11. against the petitioner are with regard to execution of sale deed of property of somebody the abovementioned sale deed, the peti owner of the property, and create 12. petitioner of impersonation and the abovementioned offence with imprisonment of change in attending circumstances from the date of dismissal of former bail petition, it deserves dismissal. Hence, the same is hereb 13. shall not have any 14. disposed of, accordingly. 23.07.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-34685-2026 (O&M) 3 and that from the date of dismissal of first bail petition than eight months, there is no significant progress in the trial. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, against the petitioner are with regard to execution of sale deed of property of somebody, by impersonating himself as owner of the property. By executing the abovementioned sale deed, the petitioner has tried to cheat owner of the property, and create cloud qua his title. Since there are very specific and direct allegations against the petitioner of impersonation and the abovementioned offence with imprisonment of life, and apparently, there is no denial in attending circumstances from the date of dismissal of former bail petition, it is hereby held that the present petition dismissal. Hence, the same is hereb However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 3 and that from the date of dismissal of first bail petition, despite lapse of more than eight months, there is no significant progress in the trial. The learned State Counsel has controverted the The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, allegations against the petitioner are with regard to execution of sale deed of property of by impersonating himself as owner of the property. By executing tioner has tried to cheat the actual cloud qua his title. Since there are very specific and direct allegations against the petitioner of impersonation and the abovementioned offence is punishable and apparently, there is no denial that there is no in attending circumstances from the date of dismissal of former bail the present petition is devoid of merit and dismissal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, accordingly. it is clarified that the abovementioned observations on the merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No , despite lapse of more The learned State Counsel has controverted the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to execution of sale deed of property of by impersonating himself as owner of the property. By executing he actual Since there are very specific and direct allegations against the is punishable that there is no in attending circumstances from the date of dismissal of former bail is devoid of merit and it is clarified that the abovementioned observations Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.24 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document