Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Businessmen Accused of ₹25 Crore Land Fraud, Declared Proclaimed Offenders
Case Name: Iqbal Singh Sabharwal & Another v. State of Punjab & Another
Date of Judgment: January 7, 2015
Citation: CRM-M-32670-2014
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by Iqbal Singh Sabharwal and Harpreet Walia Sabharwal, accused of defrauding a businessman of ₹25 crore through false representations in a land deal. Justice Naresh Kumar Sanghi held that the petitioners, having been declared proclaimed offenders under Section 82 CrPC, were not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that once a person is declared an absconder, judicial discretion must not be exercised in their favour, citing Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 240 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 269.
Summary: The petitioners, owners of MPS Multiplex Company, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated April 21, 2006, and a Deed of Confirmation dated September 9, 2006, with complainant Sukaran Kumar Jain for the sale of 55 kanals and 3 marlas of land for ₹112.50 crore. The complainant paid ₹25 crore as earnest money after being assured that the land was fully owned and partitioned in the petitioners’ name. Subsequent inquiries revealed that the land was neither mutated nor partitioned as claimed, and that the documents submitted to the Chief Town Planner for change of land use were falsified.
Following the complaint, the case underwent multiple investigations. Initially, the police proposed cancellation of the FIR, but after intervention by higher authorities, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 420 IPC, followed by a supplementary charge-sheet adding Sections 120-B, 406, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. When the petitioners failed to appear before the trial court, proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were initiated, and they were declared proclaimed offenders. Despite this, they sought anticipatory bail for the second time, arguing that the dispute was civil in nature and that earlier findings favoured them.
Justice Sanghi rejected these contentions, observing that the petitioners had deliberately misrepresented material facts to induce the complainant to part with ₹25 crore. He further noted that no fresh grounds had been presented since the earlier bail withdrawal in December 2013, and that the law does not permit granting anticipatory bail to absconders.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, holding that the petitioners’ conduct, concealment of facts, and status as proclaimed offenders barred them from discretionary relief under Section 438 CrPC. The Court reiterated that accused persons declared absconders must first surrender before seeking judicial indulgence.