Property Dispute Given Criminal Colour? Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in ₹86 Crore Gurugram Land Deal Fraud Case

Case Name: Punit Beriwala v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 05 June 2026

Citation: CRM-M-26821-2026

Bench: Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to real estate developer Punit Beriwala in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case arising out of a decades-old Gurugram land transaction. The Court observed that the dispute primarily appeared to be civil in nature arising from contractual obligations and reiterated that private civil disputes should not ordinarily be given a criminal colour merely to exert pressure on parties.

Summary: The case originated from allegations made by the complainant, who claimed ownership of agricultural land in Village Fazilpur Jharsa, Gurugram. According to the prosecution, in 2005 the petitioner, allegedly acting as Director of M/s Vipul Limited, entered into agreements for purchase of the land. It was alleged that instead of paying the agreed sale consideration, the petitioner induced the complainant and her family members to transfer the land on the promise that developed residential plots would be allotted to them after development of a residential colony.

The complainant alleged that despite execution of various agreements and transfer of valuable land, the promised plots were never allotted to her. It was further alleged that the land was subsequently transferred and sold to third parties, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant while conferring unlawful gain upon the accused persons. On these allegations, an FIR was registered for offences relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and conspiracy.

Seeking bail, the petitioner argued that there was never any fraudulent intention from the outset and that the proposed real estate project could not materialise because regulatory approvals and licences were not granted. It was contended that the dispute arose from contractual arrangements and subsequent commercial difficulties rather than any criminal design. The petitioner further pointed out that the complainant’s sons had already accepted alternative plots in another project developed by the company and had executed settlement arrangements. It was also highlighted that a similar dispute involving the complainant’s brother-in-law had already been settled for ₹15 crore.

Another important circumstance relied upon by the petitioner was that multiple complaints made by the complainant over the years had earlier been examined by the authorities and an enquiry report dated 19.02.2024 had concluded that the controversy was essentially civil in nature. The petitioner also pointed to pending civil proceedings and proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal arising from the same set of transactions.

The State and the complainant opposed the bail plea, contending that the petitioner had induced landowners to transfer their valuable land on false assurances and thereafter sold the property to third parties. According to the prosecution, the complainant was left without either the land or the promised consideration, thereby attracting the ingredients of cheating. It was also argued that the petitioner was involved in several other cases of a similar nature.

Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj observed that a civil suit concerning the same transaction was already pending and that earlier enquiry reports had treated the dispute as predominantly civil. The Court noted that the petitioner had already settled another FIR arising from identical allegations and had been granted regular bail in that connected matter. Since investigation stood completed, challan had been presented, nothing remained to be recovered from the petitioner, and the trial was likely to take considerable time, continued incarceration was found unwarranted.

Decision: Allowing the petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court held that, at the stage of bail, the dispute appeared to be largely civil in character arising from contractual obligations and property transactions. Observing that the trial would take substantial time and that the petitioner had already undergone custody while investigation stood completed, the Court directed his release on bail subject to furnishing the requisite bonds before the trial court.