Gurnam Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.107 Date of Decision: 10.04.2026 GURNAM SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Satnam Singh and Ms. Simran Kaur, Advocates for the petitioner.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the first petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973) for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 74 dated 18.03.2026, registered under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B of the IPC, 1860 (corresponding Sections 316, 318(4), 351 and 61 of the BNS, 2023) at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the present FIR has been registered on the complaint of Harjinder Kaur, an elderly lady, alleging that her daughter Rajwant Kaur and son-in-law Harjit Singh, in connivance with Surinder Singh and the present petitioner Gurnam Singh, hatched a criminal conspiracy to usurp her ancestral land. It is alleged that under the pretext of execution of wills, the complainant was taken to the Tehsil where instead of Wills, sale deeds of her land measuring about 101 Bighas 11 Biswas were

fraudulently executed in favour of different persons. The sale consideration amounting to approximately ₹4.21 crores was deposited in a joint account and thereafter siphoned off to the accounts of the accused persons, including an amount of about ₹98 lakhs transferred to the account of the petitioner. 3.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is an old aged person of about 86 years. It is submitted that the dispute is of civil nature arising out of property transactions and the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. It is further argued that no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and he is ready to join the investigation. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. H.S. Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and, with the assistance of Mr. Rajpal Singh Kalra, Advocate, who appears on behalf of the complainant and has filed his vakalatnama, contests the bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy are clearly made out, wherein the complainant has been defrauded of a huge amount by getting the sale deeds executed on the pretext of execution of a will. It is further submitted that an amount of ₹98 lakhs has been transferred to the account of the petitioner and ₹48 lakhs to the account of his son, and thus both of them, in connivance with other co-accused, have defrauded the complainant.

6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner are serious

in nature involving cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy resulting in misappropriation of a huge amount. The manner in which the alleged offence has been committed, by taking advantage of the old age of the complainant and by executing sale deeds under the guise of execution of Wills, prima facie indicates a well-planned conspiracy. The transfer of substantial amount in the account of the petitioner further strengthens the allegations. At this stage, custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be necessary for effective investigation, including tracing of the money trail and recovery of the siphoned amount. In such like cases involving economic offences and cheating, anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine.

In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of this Court in Anis Khan and others versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-44111 of 2025 (O&M) decided on 29.09.2025, wherein it has been held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted where allegations involve cheating and fraudulent intent at the inception, and custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair and effective investigation. It has further been held that in cases involving serious economic offences, the relief of anticipatory bail is to be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. 7.

Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the offence and the requirement of custodial interrogation, this Court does not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 9.

However, it is clarified that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

10.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 10.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No