CRM-M-36385-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 210 CRM-M-36385-2026 Date of decision : 15.07.2026 BALTEJ SINGH ALIAS BALTEJ SINGH GILL ... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB .. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Anoop Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab assisted by ASI Satnam Singh (Investigating Officer). Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.58 dated 11.04.2026 under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS (corresponding Sections 420 ,465, 468, 467, 471, 120-B of IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar Moga, District Moga. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2025, the complainant entered into an agreement to purchase the land measuring 34 Kanal situated in the area of village Mahesari @ Rs.65 Lakh per acre from one Basant Singh and on the same day, he had paid Rs.70 lakhs in cash on account of earnest money in the presence of witnesses, namely, Baltej Singh (petitioner) and co-accused SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.27 17.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36385-2026 -2- Manjit Singh. It was agreed that the sale deed will be executed on 18.01.2026. However, Basant Singh had earlier entered into an agreement dated 18.06.2025 to purchase said land from one Dharampal K. Singh @ Rs.52 lakhs per acre and said Dharampal K. Singh had further entered into an agreement to purchase said land from Jaswinder Kaur @ Rs.48 lakhs 20 thousand per acre, on 16.04.2025. At the time of execution of agreement to sell in favour of complainant by Basant Singh, accused Dharampal K. Singh had also executed an affidavit in which he had categorically mentioned that he had entered into an agreement to purchase the said land from Jaswinder Kaur and lateron further entered into agreement to sell for same land in favour of Basant Singh and he will have no objection if Basant Singh will get executed the sale deed in his favour or any other person. Said affidavit was duly signed by Dharampal K. Singh and thumb marked by Jaswinder Kaur. It is also alleged that later on, the complainant came to know that all the accused in connivance with each other had entered into a planning to play fraud amounting to Rs.70 lakhs and they have fabricated the documents of Jaswinder Kaur by impersonating another unknown lady as Jaswinder Kaur and the real name of person, who executed the agreement as well as affidavit as Dharampal K. Singh is ‘Satnam Singh’. It is also alleged that alleged agreement executed by Jaswinder Kaur in favour of Dharampal K. Singh is also fabricated as the real Jaswinder Kaur had never entered into alleged agreement to sell. The present petitioner is alleged to have acted as a witness to the affidavit and the agreement to sell dated 18.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and has no role in the alleged cheating. It is submitted that the petitioner is merely a marginal witness to the affidavit and SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.27 17.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36385-2026 -3- agreement to sell dated 18.06.2025 and is neither a beneficiary of the alleged transaction nor a recipient of any part of the sale consideration. It is further submitted that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner except that he witnessed the documents. He also submits that the entire amount of ₹70 lakhs was allegedly received by co-accused Basant Singh and that the petitioner derived no benefit from the transaction. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency. 4. Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of an affidavit of Mr. Jatinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Moga, in Court, which is taken on record. He, while referring to the reply, submits that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and is an active participant in a well-planned conspiracy to cheat the complainant of ₹70 lakhs. It is submitted that during the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Moga, it was found that the accused persons, in connivance with each other, had fabricated the documents relating to the property transaction, impersonated the real owner by arranging another lady in place of Jaswinder Kaur and also fabricated the identity documents and agreements to sell. The petitioner had not only attested the transaction as a witness but had also identified the lady impersonating Jaswinder Kaur as well as the person impersonating Dharampal K. Singh (actual name Satnam Singh), thereby facilitating the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress, the arrest of the petitioner and other accused is necessary, particularly to trace and apprehend the lady impersonator, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for an effective SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.27 17.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36385-2026 -4- investigation. It is also pointed out that another criminal case bearing FIR No.206 dated 10.12.2024 under Sections 318(4), 61 BNS and Section 61(D) of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Sidhwan Bet, is already registered against the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that in view of the serious nature of the allegations, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 5. Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed the Vakalatnama in Court, which is taken on record. He opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner being an active participant in the conspiracy to cheat the complainant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is evident from the record that the allegations against the petitioner are not confined to his being a mere marginal witness to the agreement to sell and the affidavit. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner not only signed the documents as a witness but also played an active role in the transaction by identifying the lady who allegedly impersonated Jaswinder Kaur and the person who falsely represented himself to be Dharampal K. Singh, which were done to give authenticity to the forged documents and to induce the complainant to believe that the transaction was genuine. Therefore, at this stage, the role attributed to the petitioner cannot be treated as merely formal or incidental. Prima facie, the allegations suggest that the petitioner facilitated the execution of the forged documents and was an active participant in the alleged conspiracy. 8. The investigation in the present case is still in progress. The investigating agency has specifically stated that the custodial interrogation of SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.27 17.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36385-2026 -5- the petitioner is required to identify and apprehend the lady who allegedly impersonated Jaswinder Kaur and to ascertain the identity and role of the other persons involved in the alleged conspiracy. Since the case relates to fabrication of documents, impersonation and cheating involving a substantial amount of money, a thorough investigation is necessary to unearth the entire chain of events and the involvement of each accused. 9. Moreover, it has also been brought to the notice of this Court that another criminal case involving allegations of a similar nature is already registered against the petitioner, which cannot be ignored while considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, the stage of investigation and his antecedents, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 11. Consequently, the petition is, hereby, dismissed. 12. However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove would not have any bearing on the merits of the case. (H.S.GREWAL) July 15, 2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.27 17.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh