CRM-M- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 248 HARDEEP 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 Report, as detailed hereunder : Name petitioner(s) Hardeep Singh -51438 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HARDEEP 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 (Hardeep Singh), aged about 40 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 Report, as detailed hereunder :- petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) 27 03.04.2024 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 IPC IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51438-2025 Decided on : 17.09.2025 . . . PETITIONER . . . RESPONDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Advocate for the petitioner. AG, Punjab. Hardeep Singh), aged about 40 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 Section(s) Police Station District 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC NRI SAS Nagar SAS Nagar Mohali. 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 Information SAS Nagar POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.18 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M- 2 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 transferred the l 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, instant FI 3. the country in the year 1947, the Government allotted land measuring 23 Kanal – 9 Marla in the name of Joginder Singh (uncle of complaina 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 residing with committed after their death by accused persons by getting the land transferred in their names. 4. argues that present case vide DDR No.21 dated 10.06.2025 as he is son of the accused Balwinder Singh. Further argues that would be resolved through the -51438 of 2025 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 transferred the l 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 of complaina 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 petitioner is not named in FIR and he has been nominated in the present case vide DDR No.21 dated 10.06.2025 as he is son of the accused Balwinder Singh. Further argues that there are so many disputed facts, which would be resolved through the documentary 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 R 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 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 for petitioner petitioner is not named in FIR and he has been nominated in the present case vide DDR No.21 dated 10.06.2025 as he is son of the accused there are so many disputed facts, which documentary evidence, which already has 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 and 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 nt) 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 the complainant, thus, fraud has been committed after their death by accused persons by getting the land for petitioner petitioner is not named in FIR and he has been nominated in the present case vide DDR No.21 dated 10.06.2025 as he is son of the accused there are so many disputed facts, which evidence, which already has POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.18 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M- 3 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 I 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 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 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 ha 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 Moreover, all the charges are triable by Court of Magistrate and after completion of investigation, the challan against accused presented on 04.07.2025 since 23.06 regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial. -51438 of 2025 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 belated stage because the affidavit was 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 lifetime period, would chance of raising presumption in favour of accused party that infact there was no such fraud ever played and ha 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 Moreover, all the charges are triable by Court of Magistrate and after completion of investigation, the challan against accused presented on 04.07.2025, whereas the petitioner is since 23.06.2025, thus, prayer has been made for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial. 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, ndia 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 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 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 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 , whereas the petitioner is suffering incarceration hus, prayer has been made for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial. 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, ndia 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 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 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 chance of raising presumption in favour of accused party that infact d 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 the petitioner. Moreover, all the charges are triable by Court of Magistrate and after persons has been suffering incarceration hus, prayer has been made for grant of concession of POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.18 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M- 4 5. objection to the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail the pendency of trial and submitted that since the petitioner has committed fraud with other co therefore, same requires to be rejected. 6. relevant material available on record. 7. not named in FIR; not is suffering incarceration 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. 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. 10. expression of opini -51438 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 the pendency of trial and submitted that since the petitioner has committed fraud 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 relevant material available on record. Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is named in FIR; not involved in any other criminal case of similar nature; is suffering incarceration since 23.06.2025; the trial i 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 required in her case. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly indirectly. 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 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 accused, no leniency can be applied to his claim of bail, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is involved in any other criminal case of similar nature; .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. de 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 The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an on on the facts of the case and the trial Court is expected On the other hand, learned State counsel has raised serious during the pendency of trial and submitted that since the petitioner has committed accused, no leniency can be applied to his claim of bail, perused the Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is involved in any other criminal case of similar nature; s 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 de 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 The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an on on the facts of the case and the trial Court is expected POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.18 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M- 5 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: -51438 of 2025 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 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 decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence (SANJAY VASHISTH) POONAM SHARMA 2025.09.18 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document