P&H High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹90 Lakh Land Fraud Case Under BNSS
Case Name: Kulwinder Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-62535-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a ₹90 lakh land fraud case. The Court noted that the FIR and investigation showed active involvement of the petitioners in arranging impersonators who posed as the true landowners. The co-accused’s disclosure, supported by photographs, videos, and witness statements, created a reasonable basis for the allegations. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the cheated money, uncover the forged documents, and identify the wider conspiracy. Owing to the economic nature of the offence and the potential to derail the investigation, the case did not qualify for pre-arrest relief.
Summary: The complainant alleged that he intended to purchase land in Village Asgaripur, District Ludhiana. He met Baljit Singh, who showed him the property. He later discovered that Baljit Singh was actually Jagdish Kumar impersonating the real owners. The complainant paid ₹90,00,000, including ₹10,00,000 through cheque and ₹80,00,000 in cash. The actual owners lived in Canada, and one of them had died in 1992, but the accused used forged documents to deceive the complainant. During investigation, the co-accused named the petitioners as the men who arranged the impersonators. The petitioners denied involvement and argued false implication, pointing to earlier disputes with Jagdish Kumar. The State opposed bail and produced corroborative material showing the petitioners’ presence during the fraudulent transaction. The Court found that land fraud of this scale involved a structured conspiracy and required deep investigation. The Court emphasised that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and must be denied when economic offences involve forged documents, impersonation, and organised deceit.
Decision: The Court dismissed the petition. It held that granting anticipatory bail would obstruct the investigation and hinder recovery of evidence. It noted that custodial interrogation was essential to trace funds, identify accomplices, and establish the full conspiracy. The Court clarified that nothing in this order shall influence the investigation or prejudice the trial.