CRM-M-64309 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (106) VIKAS KUMAR CENTRAL BUREA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Mr.Vikram Mr. for Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Ms. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The Section 483 of for grant of regular bail in cases bearing RC No.0512023S00012 & RC No.0512023S00013 15.11.2023 registered under Section 120 427, 148, 149, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 193 of IPC at Police Station CBI, Special Crime Branch 64309-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ) VIKAS KUMAR Versus BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate and Mr.Vikram Vir Sharda, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Special P for the respondent-CBI Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been petition Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in cases bearing RC No.0512023S00012 & RC No.0512023S00013 (For short RC-12 and RC 15.11.2023 registered under Section 120-B read with Sections 452, 323, 506, 48, 149, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 193 of IPC at Police Station CBI, pecial Crime Branch, Chandigarh. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64309-2025 (O&M) Date of decision :27.07.2026 ... Petitioner OF INVESTIGATION ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Advocate for the petitioner Public Prosecutor Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant petition filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in cases bearing RC No.0512023S00012 & RC 12 and RC-13 respectively) dated B read with Sections 452, 323, 506, 48, 149, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 193 of IPC at Police Station CBI, (O&M) 2026 .. Petitioner ...Respondent filed by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in cases bearing RC No.0512023S00012 & RC dated B read with Sections 452, 323, 506, 48, 149, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 193 of IPC at Police Station CBI, AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64309 2. Vide direction had been issued by this Court to the respondent investigation in Sections 452, 323, 506, 427, 120B, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) bearing FIR No.303 dated 04.10.2023 registered under 467, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station Dera (Mohali) (For short “FIR No.303”) 3. FIR No.133 was lodged by Harjit Singh, Manager of Guru Nanak Vidhya as “complainant Zirakpur Patiala Road had been purchased by the complainant year 1986 and land, accused and Sarabjit Singh registered a separate Trust with the name similar to that of the complainant Trust and had got prepared different documents. Inquiries we different offices with regard to the said Trust. He alleged that on 10.03.2022, the accused Rajesh Kumar Gabba inside the land of the Trust by being armed with deadly weapons. The security guards stan weapons. Injuries were caused to them and their phones as well as CCTV cameras installed there 64309-2025 (O&M) 2 Vide order dated 18.10.2023 passed in CRM direction had been issued by this Court to the respondent investigation in cases bearing FIR No.133 dated 10.03.2022 registered under Sections 452, 323, 506, 427, 120B, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) (For short “FIR No.133”) bearing FIR No.303 dated 04.10.2023 registered under 467, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station Dera (For short “FIR No.303”). FIR No.133 was lodged by Harjit Singh, Manager of Guru Vidhya Bhandar Trust, Daryaganj, New Delhi (now to be mentione as “complainant Trust”), alleging therein that 32 bighas of land situated at Zirakpur Patiala Road had been purchased by the complainant year 1986 and it was in possession of the same. With intent to grab the said accused Sanjeev Kumar Gatha, Rajesh Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumar and Sarabjit Singh hatched a conspiracy with registered a separate Trust with the name similar to that of the complainant Trust and had got prepared different documents. Inquiries we different offices with regard to the said Trust. He alleged that on 10.03.2022, Rajesh Kumar Gabba alongwith his 10 inside the land of the Trust by being armed with deadly weapons. The security guards standing at the gate of the said land were assaulted with . Injuries were caused to them and their phones as well as CCTV cameras installed therein were damaged. Threats were extended to the guards order dated 18.10.2023 passed in CRM-M-6340-2023, a direction had been issued by this Court to the respondent-CBI to conduct 133 dated 10.03.2022 registered under Sections 452, 323, 506, 427, 120B, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station (For short “FIR No.133”) and case bearing FIR No.303 dated 04.10.2023 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar FIR No.133 was lodged by Harjit Singh, Manager of Guru Bhandar Trust, Daryaganj, New Delhi (now to be mentioned ”), alleging therein that 32 bighas of land situated at Zirakpur Patiala Road had been purchased by the complainant-Trust in the was in possession of the same. With intent to grab the said r Gatha, Rajesh Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumar hatched a conspiracy with their accomplices and had got registered a separate Trust with the name similar to that of the complainant Trust and had got prepared different documents. Inquiries were pending in different offices with regard to the said Trust. He alleged that on 10.03.2022, alongwith his 10-12 accomplices entered inside the land of the Trust by being armed with deadly weapons. The ding at the gate of the said land were assaulted with . Injuries were caused to them and their phones as well as CCTV were damaged. Threats were extended to the guards a CBI to conduct 133 dated 10.03.2022 registered under Sections 452, 323, 506, 427, 120B, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station and case Sections 420, 465, Bassi, District SAS Nagar FIR No.133 was lodged by Harjit Singh, Manager of Guru d ”), alleging therein that 32 bighas of land situated at Trust in the was in possession of the same. With intent to grab the said r Gatha, Rajesh Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumar had got registered a separate Trust with the name similar to that of the complainant in different offices with regard to the said Trust. He alleged that on 10.03.2022, 12 accomplices entered inside the land of the Trust by being armed with deadly weapons. The ding at the gate of the said land were assaulted with . Injuries were caused to them and their phones as well as CCTV were damaged. Threats were extended to the guards AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64309 and all this was done to take illegal possession of t Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted and charge as against the co Manoj Kumar 4. FIR No.303 was registered on the basis of complaint filed by Inder Deep alleging that Sarabjit Singh and Rajinder Kumar had created and utilized forged documents to claim ownership and possession of the land owned by the complainant Trust. 5. After re respectively, the CB accused Sanjeev Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumar and Sarabjit Singh alongwith the fake Trust had filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Advocate.An application under Order 39 Rule said suit had been Division), Dera against the above 6. As per the further allegations, t with the co-accused attempted to shift the adjudication away from Dera to Bathinda wherein he had been employed to manipulate the proceedings by summoning records related to the 64309-2025 (O&M) 3 and all this was done to take illegal possession of t Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted and charge as against the co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Gatha, Rajesh Kumar Gaba . FIR No.303 was registered on the basis of complaint filed by ep alleging that accused Sanjeev Kumar Gatha Sarabjit Singh and Rajinder Kumar had created and utilized forged documents to claim ownership and possession of the land owned by the complainant After re-registration of both the above the CBI had conducted investigation. It was revealed that the accused Sanjeev Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumar and Sarabjit Singh alongwith the fake Trust had filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior ision), Dera Bassi through the present petitioner, who was a practising An application under Order 39 Rule said suit had been dismissed by the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi vide order dated 04.04.2022 and strictures were passed against the above-named accused. As per the further allegations, then accused attempted to shift the adjudication away from Dera to Bathinda wherein he had been regularly to manipulate the proceedings by summoning records related to the and all this was done to take illegal possession of the land of the Trust. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted and charge-sheet was filed accused Sanjeev Kumar Gatha, Rajesh Kumar Gaba and FIR No.303 was registered on the basis of complaint filed by Sanjeev Kumar Gatha, Rajesh Kumar, Sarabjit Singh and Rajinder Kumar had created and utilized forged documents to claim ownership and possession of the land owned by the complainant above FIRs as RC No.12 and 13 I had conducted investigation. It was revealed that the accused Sanjeev Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumar and Sarabjit Singh alongwith the fake Trust had filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Bassi through the present petitioner, who was a practising An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC as filed in the by the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior .2022 and strictures were passed hen the petitioner in connivance accused attempted to shift the adjudication away from Dera Bassi regularly practising. A strategy was to manipulate the proceedings by summoning records related to the he land of the Trust. A sheet was filed and FIR No.303 was registered on the basis of complaint filed by , Rajesh Kumar, Sarabjit Singh and Rajinder Kumar had created and utilized forged documents to claim ownership and possession of the land owned by the complainant FIRs as RC No.12 and 13 I had conducted investigation. It was revealed that the accused Sanjeev Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumar and Sarabjit Singh alongwith the fake Trust had filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Bassi through the present petitioner, who was a practising in the by the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior .2022 and strictures were passed petitioner in connivance Bassi practising. A strategy was to manipulate the proceedings by summoning records related to the AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64309 disputed property owned by the complainant witnesses in 04 totally different and unrelated matters. The petitioner who had been appearing in those cases as Advocate for one or the other party obtained information regarding financial history of the complainant summoning official witnesses from banker of the complainant other departments in order to complaints in the name of co complainant-Trust to exert pressure and also manipulated witnesses of the banker of the complainant 7. The investigation further the record of the complaina without the knowledge or consent of the parties in whose names the litigation was going on. It was also revea Prabhdeep Singh on whose behalf a complaint had been filed that he had never moved any application for summoning the record witnesses named therein and the petitioner had obtained his signatures on such applications in a fraudulent manner. Prabhdeep Singh also provided a recorded conversation between himself and the petitioner wherein the latter admitted the factum of wrongfully summoning documents and witnesses and was asking him to not to coopera was also found to have resorted to forum shopping by moving application to Bathinda in connivance with the co obtaining desired false statements as well as record. 64309-2025 (O&M) 4 property owned by the complainant witnesses in 04 totally different and unrelated matters. The petitioner who had been appearing in those cases as Advocate for one or the other party obtained information regarding financial history of the complainant summoning official witnesses from banker of the complainant other departments in order to secure false testimony. He also filed two complaints in the name of co-accused as against the Manager of the Trust to exert pressure and also manipulated witnesses of the banker of the complainant-Trust into testifying in favour of the fake Tr The investigation further revealed that the witnesses relating to the record of the complainant-Trust were summoned in unrelated cases without the knowledge or consent of the parties in whose names the litigation was going on. It was also revealed from the statement recorded by one Prabhdeep Singh on whose behalf a complaint had been filed that he had never moved any application for summoning the record witnesses named therein and the petitioner had obtained his signatures on such applications in a fraudulent manner. Prabhdeep Singh also provided a recorded conversation between himself and the petitioner wherein the latter admitted the factum of wrongfully summoning documents and witnesses and was asking him to not to cooperate with the CBI investigation. The petitioner was also found to have resorted to forum shopping by moving application to Bathinda in connivance with the co-accused persons for the purpose of obtaining desired false statements as well as record. property owned by the complainant-Trust and by summoning witnesses in 04 totally different and unrelated matters. The petitioner who had been appearing in those cases as Advocate for one or the other party, obtained information regarding financial history of the complainant-Trust by summoning official witnesses from banker of the complainant-Trust and some secure false testimony. He also filed two accused as against the Manager of the Trust to exert pressure and also manipulated witnesses of the Trust into testifying in favour of the fake Trust. revealed that the witnesses relating to Trust were summoned in unrelated cases without the knowledge or consent of the parties in whose names the litigation led from the statement recorded by one Prabhdeep Singh on whose behalf a complaint had been filed that he had never moved any application for summoning the record of the Trust or the witnesses named therein and the petitioner had obtained his signatures on such applications in a fraudulent manner. Prabhdeep Singh also provided a recorded conversation between himself and the petitioner wherein the latter admitted the factum of wrongfully summoning documents and witnesses and te with the CBI investigation. The petitioner was also found to have resorted to forum shopping by moving application to accused persons for the purpose of obtaining desired false statements as well as record. Trust and by summoning witnesses in 04 totally different and unrelated matters. The petitioner who , Trust by Trust and some secure false testimony. He also filed two accused as against the Manager of the Trust to exert pressure and also manipulated witnesses of the revealed that the witnesses relating to Trust were summoned in unrelated cases without the knowledge or consent of the parties in whose names the litigation led from the statement recorded by one Prabhdeep Singh on whose behalf a complaint had been filed that he had of the Trust or the witnesses named therein and the petitioner had obtained his signatures on such applications in a fraudulent manner. Prabhdeep Singh also provided a recorded conversation between himself and the petitioner wherein the latter admitted the factum of wrongfully summoning documents and witnesses and te with the CBI investigation. The petitioner was also found to have resorted to forum shopping by moving application to accused persons for the purpose of AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64309 8. After conducting investigation in RC No.12 and 13, the respondent-CBI filed a composite charge Trial Court who summoned the petitioner. before the Court on 15.07.2025 bail which was dismissed by the Punjab, SAS Nagar (Mohali) vide order dated 31.10.2025. 9. It is argued by learned had joined the sought by the respondent during investigation. No recovery was to be effected from him. Nor any recovery has been effected from him. He was not named in either of the FIRs bearing No been attributed to him. The disputed documents were alleged to be forged and fabricated prior to March, 2022 and the petitioner had no form of relationship with the co question of his h The proceedings by way of civil suit to crystalize the rights of the complainant-Trust and the alleged fake Trust are still pending. He is not beneficiary of the rights qua those Trusts nor he is business of any of the Trust and had been simply representing one of the Trust. There is no revenue record to prove the plea of the complainant qua ownership of land in question. The allegation that the irrelevant witnesses were got summoned by him in totally unrelated cases to perpetuate the fraud are totally wrong. He is 64309-2025 (O&M) 5 After conducting investigation in RC No.12 and 13, the CBI filed a composite charge-sheet in both the cases before the Trial Court who summoned the petitioner. before the Court on 15.07.2025. He filed an applicat bail which was dismissed by the Court of Learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Punjab, SAS Nagar (Mohali) vide order dated 31.10.2025. It is argued by learned Seniorcounsel for the petitioner that he had joined the inquiry/investigation throughout sought by the respondent during investigation. No recovery was to be effected from him. Nor any recovery has been effected from him. He was in either of the FIRs bearing Nos been attributed to him. The disputed documents were alleged to be forged and fabricated prior to March, 2022 and the petitioner had no form of relationship with the co-accused at that time and, therefore, there was no question of his hatching any conspiracy with them or forging any document. The proceedings by way of civil suit to crystalize the rights of the Trust and the alleged fake Trust are still pending. He is not beneficiary of the rights qua those Trusts nor he is business of any of the Trust and had been simply representing one of the Trust. There is no revenue record to prove the plea of the complainant qua ownership of land in question. The allegation that the irrelevant witnesses t summoned by him in totally unrelated cases to perpetuate the fraud are totally wrong. He is in custody since 25.07.2025. The chances of After conducting investigation in RC No.12 and 13, the sheet in both the cases before the Trial Court who summoned the petitioner. The petitioner had surrendered . He filed an application for grant of regular Court of Learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Punjab, SAS Nagar (Mohali) vide order dated 31.10.2025. counsel for the petitioner that he out and his custody was never sought by the respondent during investigation. No recovery was to be effected from him. Nor any recovery has been effected from him. He was s.133 and 303, nor any role had been attributed to him. The disputed documents were alleged to be forged and fabricated prior to March, 2022 and the petitioner had no form of accused at that time and, therefore, there was no atching any conspiracy with them or forging any document. The proceedings by way of civil suit to crystalize the rights of the Trust and the alleged fake Trust are still pending. He is not beneficiary of the rights qua those Trusts nor he is involved in day-to-day business of any of the Trust and had been simply representing one of the Trust. There is no revenue record to prove the plea of the complainant qua ownership of land in question. The allegation that the irrelevant witnesses t summoned by him in totally unrelated cases to perpetuate the fraud, custody since 25.07.2025. The chances of After conducting investigation in RC No.12 and 13, the sheet in both the cases before the The petitioner had surrendered ion for grant of regular Court of Learned Special Judge, CBI Court, counsel for the petitioner that he and his custody was never sought by the respondent during investigation. No recovery was to be effected from him. Nor any recovery has been effected from him. He was role had been attributed to him. The disputed documents were alleged to be forged and fabricated prior to March, 2022 and the petitioner had no form of accused at that time and, therefore, there was no atching any conspiracy with them or forging any document. The proceedings by way of civil suit to crystalize the rights of the Trust and the alleged fake Trust are still pending. He is not day business of any of the Trust and had been simply representing one of the Trust. There is no revenue record to prove the plea of the complainant qua ownership of land in question. The allegation that the irrelevant witnesses , custody since 25.07.2025. The chances of AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64309 conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak as only 02 out of 145 prosecution witnesses have been examined so and there are no chances of his absconding. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail. It is, therefore, ar that the petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Per contra, learned learned Senior counsel for the c against the petitioner are quite serious in nature as by conniving wit accused and in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, the petitioner who was representing the co from DeraBassi Court to Bathinda Court and in connivance with the co accused Neeraj Kumar complainant Trust, got recorded false statements in favour of the accused persons. It is also argued that the petitioner then colluded with co Kavita, who had filed a complaint under the provisions of Do Act, totally unrelated to the case of the matter relating to the property of the complainant Trust and got summoned witnesses in that case for the purpose of extracting false statements and for procuring the record of the complainant Trust that was a genuine Trust. It is argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are not clean. It is further submitted that there are also chances of petitioner’s tampering with evidence or intimidating the witnesses, if 64309-2025 (O&M) 6 conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak as only 02 out of 145 prosecution witnesses have been examined so and there are no chances of his absconding. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail. It is, therefore, ar that the petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor learned Senior counsel for the complainant have argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature as by conniving wit accused and in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, the petitioner who was representing the co-accused in a civil suit, shifted the adjudication from DeraBassi Court to Bathinda Court and in connivance with the co accused Neeraj Kumar Singhal and Paramveer Singh complainant Trust, got recorded false statements in favour of the accused persons. It is also argued that the petitioner then colluded with co Kavita, who had filed a complaint under the provisions of Do totally unrelated to the case of the matter relating to the property of the complainant Trust and got summoned witnesses in that case for the purpose of extracting false statements and for procuring the record of the complainant was a genuine Trust. It is argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are not clean. It is further submitted that there are also chances of petitioner’s tampering with evidence or intimidating the witnesses, if conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak as only 02 out of 145 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. He has a permanent abode and there are no chances of his absconding. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and have argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature as by conniving with the co- accused and in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, the petitioner accused in a civil suit, shifted the adjudication from DeraBassi Court to Bathinda Court and in connivance with the co- Singhal and Paramveer Singh, bankers of the complainant Trust, got recorded false statements in favour of the accused persons. It is also argued that the petitioner then colluded with co-accused Kavita, who had filed a complaint under the provisions of Domestic Violence totally unrelated to the case of the matter relating to the property of the complainant Trust and got summoned witnesses in that case for the purpose of extracting false statements and for procuring the record of the complainant was a genuine Trust. It is argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are not clean. It is further submitted that there are also chances of petitioner’s tampering with evidence or intimidating the witnesses, if conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak as only 02 out of 145 far. He has a permanent abode and there are no chances of his absconding. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be gued for CBI and have argued that the allegations - accused and in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, the petitioner accused in a civil suit, shifted the adjudication - of the complainant Trust, got recorded false statements in favour of the accused accused mestic Violence totally unrelated to the case of the matter relating to the property of the complainant Trust and got summoned witnesses in that case for the purpose of extracting false statements and for procuring the record of the complainant was a genuine Trust. It is argued that the antecedents of the petitioner are not clean. It is further submitted that there are also chances of petitioner’s tampering with evidence or intimidating the witnesses, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64309 extended benefit of bail. petition does not deserve to be 11. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 12. The petitioner is alleged to ha who had prepared fake and false documents to mimic Trust i.e. the complainant he is alleged to have made efforts to legalize forged documents by shi forum of adjudication from Dera summoning the witnesses from banker of the complainant manipulating them to record false statements, and further by manipulating other witnesses, who were parties in the alleged to have tried to manoeuvre a material witness Prabhdeep Singh. The allegations prima facie network by the complainant-Trust. Being an Advocate by profession, he is presumed to be well-aware about the consequences of the actions manipulation of the legal proceedings, obviously with intent to influence judicial outcome to the detriment of the consideration the nature of the subject offences, the active role attributed to the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be ext 64309-2025 (O&M) 7 extended benefit of bail. With these broad submissions, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have colluded with the co who had prepared fake and false documents to mimic Trust i.e. the complainant-Trust. In pursuance of the conspiracy so hatched, he is alleged to have made efforts to legalize forged documents by shi forum of adjudication from Dera Bassi Court to Bathinda Court, by summoning the witnesses from banker of the complainant manipulating them to record false statements, and further by manipulating other witnesses, who were parties in the unrelated litigation. He is also alleged to have tried to manoeuvre a material witness Prabhdeep Singh. The prima facie make out a case of formation of an organized criminal network by the petitioner with the co-accused to grab the land of th Trust. Being an Advocate by profession, he is presumed to be aware about the consequences of the actions manipulation of the legal proceedings, obviously with intent to influence judicial outcome to the detriment of the complainant consideration the nature of the subject offences, the active role attributed to the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be ext se broad submissions, it is stressed that the This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned ve colluded with the co-accused, who had prepared fake and false documents to mimic those of the legitimate Trust. In pursuance of the conspiracy so hatched, he is alleged to have made efforts to legalize forged documents by shifting the Bassi Court to Bathinda Court, by summoning the witnesses from banker of the complainant-Trust and manipulating them to record false statements, and further by manipulating unrelated litigation. He is also alleged to have tried to manoeuvre a material witness Prabhdeep Singh. The make out a case of formation of an organized criminal accused to grab the land of the Trust. Being an Advocate by profession, he is presumed to be aware about the consequences of the actions done by him, by manipulation of the legal proceedings, obviously with intent to influence complainant-Trust. Taking into consideration the nature of the subject offences, the active role attributed to the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit se broad submissions, it is stressed that the This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned accused, those of the legitimate Trust. In pursuance of the conspiracy so hatched, fting the Bassi Court to Bathinda Court, by Trust and manipulating them to record false statements, and further by manipulating unrelated litigation. He is also alleged to have tried to manoeuvre a material witness Prabhdeep Singh. The make out a case of formation of an organized criminal e Trust. Being an Advocate by profession, he is presumed to be by him, by manipulation of the legal proceedings, obviously with intent to influence Trust. Taking into consideration the nature of the subject offences, the active role attributed to the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the ended benefit AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-64309 of bail. Accordingly, finding no compelling ground to allow the present petition, the same is dismissed. 13. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same bearing on the merits of the case. 14. Since the main petition has been if any, is rendered infructuous. 27.07.2026 Amit Sharma 64309-2025 (O&M) 8 of bail. Accordingly, finding no compelling ground to allow the present petition, the same is dismissed. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same bearing on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No of bail. Accordingly, finding no compelling ground to allow the present It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no Since the main petition has been dismissed pending application, (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No of bail. Accordingly, finding no compelling ground to allow the present It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only shall have no pending application, AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.