Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Alleged Land Fraud Case Involving Forged Aadhaar and Sale Deeds; Holds Custodial Interrogation Unwarranted

Case Name: Reeta Rani v. State of Punjab and Connected Matters
Citation: CRM-M-64813-2024 and connected cases
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of multiple anticipatory and regular bail petitions arising out of a single FIR alleging large-scale land fraud through forged Aadhaar cards, impersonation of deceased owners, and execution of fraudulent sale deeds. The Court held that continued custodial interrogation of the accused was not justified where the investigation substantially rested on documentary evidence, recoveries had already been effected, and the accused had either remained in custody for a considerable period or had cooperated with the investigation. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions.

Summary: The petitions arose from an FIR alleging that ancestral land belonging to the complainant’s deceased relatives was fraudulently sold by impersonating the original owners using forged Aadhaar cards and fabricated powers of attorney. It was alleged that forged sale deeds were executed in favour of certain accused, followed by mutations and even availing of a bank loan on the basis of the forged documents. Multiple accused were implicated, including beneficiaries of the sale deeds, alleged conspirators, witnesses to the documents, and a revenue department employee.

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the respective roles attributed to each accused. It noted that the principal allegations centred around documentary manipulation, impersonation, and misuse of public records, all of which were capable of verification through official records such as sale deeds, Aadhaar data, mutations, jamabandis, and bank documents. The Court observed that the main accused had already undergone substantial custodial interrogation and that no further recovery was shown to be pending.

In respect of accused who were either witnesses to the sale deeds or government employees with limited roles, the Court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted in the absence of material showing direct benefit or active participation in the alleged conspiracy. As regards accused who had acquired rights in the property, the Court took note of the fact that the impugned sale deeds had already been cancelled by the competent authority, thereby neutralising the immediate effect of the alleged fraud.

The Court reiterated that custodial interrogation cannot be treated as a default investigative tool, particularly when the prosecution case primarily depends on documentary evidence and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Cooperation with investigation, absence of flight risk, and lack of necessity for further recovery weighed in favour of granting bail.

Decision: Regular bail was granted to the principal accused who had remained in custody, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds. Anticipatory bail protection was confirmed or made absolute in favour of other petitioners, with directions to join the investigation as and when required. Stringent conditions were imposed, including compliance with statutory bail conditions, surrender of passports, and continued cooperation with the investigating agency.