IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 206 CRM-M-21103-2026 Decided on: 06.07.2026 SURINDER SINGH …...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Inder Singh Gahlawat, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Akshay Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for release the petitioner on bail, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Surinder Singh 322 04.07.2025 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC (corresponding to Sections 318(4), 336(2), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS Zirakpur SAS Nagar (Mohali) 2. On 01.05.2026, following order was passed:- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, on 20.04.2026, following order was passed: 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- PRIYANKA 2026.07.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21103-2026 -2- Name & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Surinder Singh 322 04.07.2025 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC (corresponding to Sections 318(4), 336(2), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS Zirakpur SAS Nagar (Mohali) 2. FIR has been registered on the basis of complaint moved by complainant Anil Verma, Director of Kala Realtech Private limited company , Connaught Place, Delhi to the effect that company is the lawful owner of the land located at Zirakpur, Mohali village Nabha, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar. The purchase of this land was financed through a loan from the financial institution IFCI. The said property is currently under a legal dispute at the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi where an order has been passed restraining the company and the Tehsildar from selling or transferring the proeprty. The said property was previously attached by CBI in another case. On 1.06.2025, Gurpreet Singh alongwith muscle men attempted to forcibly occupy the premises in question. Their unlawful attempt was thwarted and the police was called. Gurpreet Singh claimed that he had agreement to sell executed by Surinder Singh in his favour and he had already filed civil suit in court at Dera Bassi. Thereafter, they made inquiries from the court and obtained the copies of the said case and was surprised to see that Surinder Singh in collusion with Gurpreet Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and other persons has fraudulently created fake documents board resolution dated 09.01.2024 of the company and prepared an agreement to sell of the valuable property of the company. No such resolution has ever been passed by the company. The said resolution is forged and fabricated document. The above said property has been pruchased by the company in the year 2011 for approximately 16 crores where as in fraudulent agreement to sell the sale price is mentioned as Rs. 4 crore. So, all the accused with common intention to grab the valuable property of the company has forged the document. 3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with other co-accused, hatched a conspiracy and forged a resolution of the company, wherein complainant-Anil Verma, and petitioner-Surinder Singh, were shown as Directors. On the basis of the said forged resolution, an agreement to sell in respect of the company’s property was executed. It has further come on record that in the year 2011, value of the said property was approximately Rs.16.00 crores; however, in the alleged agreement to sell, total consideration has been shown as only Rs.4.00 crores. PRIYANKA 2026.07.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21103-2026 -3- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that merely on the basis of the agreement to sell, it cannot be said that any offence is made out, particularly when the said resolution was never acted upon, as no sale deed was ever executed. 5. It is further submitted that a civil suit bearing No.CS-1125-2024 for permanent injunction, in respect of the property in question, along with proceedings under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, wherein the agreement to sell dated 13.03.2024 (with stipulated date of execution of registered sale deed as 12.03.2025) is under challenge, is already pending adjudication. It is also submitted that vide order dated 25.11.2024, Civil Court has already passed an interim order restraining execution of the sale deed with respect to the property in question. It is, thus, contended that once the issue regarding genuineness of the resolution and agreement to sell is sub judice before the Civil Court, there is no justification for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner and other accused. It is further pointed out that one of the co- accused, Gurtej Singh, who had signed the agreement to sell as a witness, has already been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 04.12.2025 passed in CRM-M-40144-2025 (Annexure P-7). It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and to fully cooperate with the investigating agency, in the event he is granted protection from arrest by this Court. Thus, counsel prays for grant of the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case. 6. Notice of motion. 7. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent – State, and Mr. Akshay Mittal, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2, and files his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record. 8. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, before any interim relief is granted to the petitioner, he be heard on the issue that in other litigations, petitioner has already been declared a member of the land mafia. It is thus contended that, in view of the said conduct and antecedents, petitioner is not entitled to any concession of anticipatory bail. 9. Adjourned to 27.04.2026. 10. To be shown in the urgent list. 11. Let reply, if any, be filed by the respondents, in the Registry, before the next date of hearing, with an advance copy to the counsel opposite. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel are ad idem to the issue that there were three cheques total amounting to Rs. 70 lacs and PRIYANKA 2026.07.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21103-2026 -4- none of them were ever got encashed. Thus, counsel submits that petitioner has not earned even a single penny or any profit rather it has come during enquiry( as per status report filed by State) that regarding rest of the amount of Rs. 30 lacs no evidence could be collected. Thus, broadly submission of the petitioner is that at the time of agreement to sell, it was total amount of Rs. 1 crore (3 cheques amounting to Rs.70 lacs + Rs. 30 lacs in cash) it never exchanged the hands. Therefore, the issue regarding the validity of resolution dated 09.01.2024, is the subject matter of investigation. 3. Adjourned to 06.07.2026. 4. In the meanwhile, petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 5. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court.” 3. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 01.05.2026, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order. 4. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI ParempreetSingh, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 01.05.2026, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is PRIYANKA 2026.07.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21103-2026 -5- allowed. However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 7. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 06.07.2026 pry Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO PRIYANKA 2026.07.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document