CRM-M- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 246 SURINDER SINGH STATE OF CORAM: PRESENT: SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. instant petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case Information Report, as detailed hereunder : -51409 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SURINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate Mr. Aashish Sood, Advocate Mr. Harveen Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bareen Pratap Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) Petitioner (Surinder Singh), aged about 44 instant petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case Information Report, as detailed hereunder : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51409-2025 Decided on : 17.09.2025 . . . PETITIONER . . . RESPONDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Advocate for the petitioner. AG, Punjab. Singh), aged about 44 years, has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder :- years, has filed the instant petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of arising out of First POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.18 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M- 2 Name of petitioner(s) Surinder Singh 2. against (1) Balwinder Singh (2) Surinder Singh and (3) Khushwant Singh (petitioner herein) with the allegations that they forged the signatures of his father Jaidev Singh and uncle Joginder Singh and got transf measuring 32 Kanal dated 15.12.2010. The land was got transferred through a civil court decree and thus, with the allegation of committing fraud and causing damage to the complainant, 3. the country in the year 1947, the Government allotted land measuring 23 Kanal – 9 Marla in the name of Joginder Singh (uncle o land measuring 9 Kanal complainant), total land measuring 32 Kanal ago, both of them (father and uncle of complainant) had migrated to Thailand and started re committed after their death by accused persons by getting the land transferred in their names. 4. there are so many disputed facts, which wou -51409 of 2025 Name of petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Surinder 27 03.04.2024 FIR has been registered on the complaint of one Kishan Dev against (1) Balwinder Singh (2) Surinder Singh and (3) Khushwant Singh (petitioner herein) with the allegations that they forged the signatures of his father Jaidev Singh and uncle Joginder Singh and got transf measuring 32 Kanal – 17 Marla in their favour by preparing a false affidavit dated 15.12.2010. The land was got transferred through a civil court decree and thus, with the allegation of committing fraud and causing damage to the complainant, instant FIR was got registered against accused persons. The facts, as detailed in FIR, revealed out that after partition of country in the year 1947, the Government allotted land measuring 23 9 Marla in the name of Joginder Singh (uncle o measuring 9 Kanal – 8 Marla in the name of Jaidev Singh (father of complainant), total land measuring 32 Kanal ago, both of them (father and uncle of complainant) had migrated to Thailand and started residing with the complainant, thus, fraud has been committed after their death by accused persons by getting the land transferred in their names. Demonstrating the facts as alleged in FIR, counsel argues that there are so many disputed facts, which wou Section(s) Police Station District 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC NRI SAS Nagar SAS Nagar Mohali registered on the complaint of one Kishan Dev against (1) Balwinder Singh (2) Surinder Singh and (3) Khushwant Singh (petitioner herein) with the allegations that they forged the signatures of his father Jaidev Singh and uncle Joginder Singh and got transferred the land 17 Marla in their favour by preparing a false affidavit dated 15.12.2010. The land was got transferred through a civil court decree and thus, with the allegation of committing fraud and causing damage to the instant FIR was got registered against accused persons. The facts, as detailed in FIR, revealed out that after partition of country in the year 1947, the Government allotted land measuring 23 9 Marla in the name of Joginder Singh (uncle of complainant) and 8 Marla in the name of Jaidev Singh (father of complainant), total land measuring 32 Kanal – 17 Marla. About 40-45 years ago, both of them (father and uncle of complainant) had migrated to siding with the complainant, thus, fraud has been committed after their death by accused persons by getting the land Demonstrating the facts as alleged in FIR, counsel argues that there are so many disputed facts, which would be resolved through the District SAS Nagar Mohali registered on the complaint of one Kishan Dev against (1) Balwinder Singh (2) Surinder Singh and (3) Khushwant Singh (petitioner herein) with the allegations that they forged the signatures of his erred the land 17 Marla in their favour by preparing a false affidavit dated 15.12.2010. The land was got transferred through a civil court decree and thus, with the allegation of committing fraud and causing damage to the The facts, as detailed in FIR, revealed out that after partition of country in the year 1947, the Government allotted land measuring 23 f complainant) and 8 Marla in the name of Jaidev Singh (father of 45 years ago, both of them (father and uncle of complainant) had migrated to siding with the complainant, thus, fraud has been committed after their death by accused persons by getting the land Demonstrating the facts as alleged in FIR, counsel argues that ld be resolved through the POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.18 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M- 3 documentary evidence, which already has been collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. Moreover, the other factual aspects such as, guards and owners of allottees of the land, namely, Jaidev Singh death i.e. in the year 2020 or near about, would be subject matter to be proved by the prosecution beyond doubt during the course of trial. It is also argued that FIR has been registered at a b was purported to be executed way back on dated 15.12.2010, whereas FIR in question was lodged after more than 14 years i.e. on 03.04.2024. It is also pointed out that apart from affidavit dated 15.12.2010, which was the b document for passing a decree on 19.09.2012, was well within the lifetime of actual owners of the land and there being no challenge ever during their lifetime period, would give accused party that infact ther been any illegal act at the instance of petitioner, the same could not be kept concealed for a period of 12 years i.e. upto the time of registration of FIR, thus, lodging of FIR is just to twist the arm and to party including the petitioner. Moreover, all the charges are triable by Court of Magistrate and after completion of investigation, the challan against accused persons has been presented on 04.07.2025, whereas the petitioner is suffering incarceration since 27.05 grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial. -51409 of 2025 documentary evidence, which already has been collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. Moreover, the other factual aspects such as, guards and owners of allottees of the land, namely, Jaidev Singh and Joginder Singh, had ever visited India or not before their death i.e. in the year 2020 or near about, would be subject matter to be proved by the prosecution beyond doubt during the course of trial. It is also argued that FIR has been registered at a b was purported to be executed way back on dated 15.12.2010, whereas FIR in question was lodged after more than 14 years i.e. on 03.04.2024. It is also pointed out that apart from affidavit dated 15.12.2010, which was the b document for passing a decree on 19.09.2012, was well within the lifetime of actual owners of the land and there being no challenge ever during their lifetime period, would give chance of raising presumption in favour of accused party that infact there was no such fraud ever played and had there been any illegal act at the instance of petitioner, the same could not be kept concealed for a period of 12 years i.e. upto the time of registration of FIR, thus, lodging of FIR is just to twist the arm and to party including the petitioner. Moreover, all the charges are triable by Court of Magistrate and after completion of investigation, the challan against accused persons has been presented on 04.07.2025, whereas the petitioner is ring incarceration since 27.05.2025, thus, prayer has been made for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of documentary evidence, which already has been collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. Moreover, the other factual aspects such as, guards and owners of allottees of the land, namely, and Joginder Singh, had ever visited India or not before their death i.e. in the year 2020 or near about, would be subject matter to be proved by the prosecution beyond doubt during the course of trial. It is also argued that FIR has been registered at a belated stage because the affidavit was purported to be executed way back on dated 15.12.2010, whereas FIR in question was lodged after more than 14 years i.e. on 03.04.2024. It is also pointed out that apart from affidavit dated 15.12.2010, which was the basic document for passing a decree on 19.09.2012, was well within the lifetime of actual owners of the land and there being no challenge ever during their chance of raising presumption in favour of e was no such fraud ever played and had there been any illegal act at the instance of petitioner, the same could not be kept concealed for a period of 12 years i.e. upto the time of registration of FIR, thus, lodging of FIR is just to twist the arm and to pressurize the accused party including the petitioner. Moreover, all the charges are triable by Court of Magistrate and after completion of investigation, the challan against accused persons has been presented on 04.07.2025, whereas the petitioner is .2025, thus, prayer has been made for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of documentary evidence, which already has been collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. Moreover, the other factual aspects such as, guards and owners of allottees of the land, namely, and Joginder Singh, had ever visited India or not before their death i.e. in the year 2020 or near about, would be subject matter to be proved by the prosecution beyond doubt during the course of trial. It is also elated stage because the affidavit was purported to be executed way back on dated 15.12.2010, whereas FIR in question was lodged after more than 14 years i.e. on 03.04.2024. It is also asic document for passing a decree on 19.09.2012, was well within the lifetime of actual owners of the land and there being no challenge ever during their chance of raising presumption in favour of e was no such fraud ever played and had there been any illegal act at the instance of petitioner, the same could not be kept concealed for a period of 12 years i.e. upto the time of registration of FIR, pressurize the accused party including the petitioner. Moreover, all the charges are triable by Court of Magistrate and after completion of investigation, the challan against accused persons has been presented on 04.07.2025, whereas the petitioner is .2025, thus, prayer has been made for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.18 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M- 4 5. objection to the prayer made by the the pendency of trial and submitted that since the petitioner has committed fraud alo of bail, therefore, same requires to be rejected. 6. relevant material available on record. 7. not involved in any other criminal case of similar nature; is suffering incarceration to take considerable time to conclude; and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 8. Petitioner is ordered to released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/suretybonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa any other case. 9. threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. -51409 of 2025 On the other hand, learned State counsel has raised serious objection to the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail during the pendency of trial and submitted that since the petitioner has committed ong with other co-accused, no leniency can be applied to his claim of bail, therefore, same requires to be rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case of similar nature; is suffering incarceration since 27.05.2025; the trial is yet to commence, which is likely to take considerable time to conclude; and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Consequently, prayer made in the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/suretybonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not any other case. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly indirectly. On the other hand, learned State counsel has raised serious petitioner for grant of regular bail during the pendency of trial and submitted that since the petitioner has committed accused, no leniency can be applied to his claim of bail, therefore, same requires to be rejected. learned counsel for the parties and perused the Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case of similar nature; is suffering .2025; the trial is yet to commence, which is likely to take considerable time to conclude; and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. equently, prayer made in the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/suretybonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly On the other hand, learned State counsel has raised serious petitioner for grant of regular bail during the pendency of trial and submitted that since the petitioner has committed accused, no leniency can be applied to his claim learned counsel for the parties and perused the Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case of similar nature; is suffering .2025; the trial is yet to commence, which is likely to take considerable time to conclude; and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the equently, prayer made in the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/suretybonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Chief Judicial required in Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.18 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M- 5 10. expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 11. September 17 Poonam Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: -51409 of 2025 The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the trial Court is expected decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of. September 17, 2025 Poonam Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the trial Court is expected decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the trial Court is expected decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence (SANJAY VASHISTH) POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.18 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document