Karamjit Singh @ Kami v. State Of Punjab

-:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (202) Date of Decision:30.06.2026 Karamjit Singh @ Kami ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent -.-

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing). Mr. I.S. Kingra, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

-.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been instituted under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 178 dated 17.07.2025, registered under Sections 419 IPC [Section 319(2) BNS], 420 IPC [Section 318(4) BNS], 465 IPC [Section 336(2) BNS], 467 IPC [Section 338 BNS], 468 IPC [Section 336(3) BNS], 471 IPC [Section 340(2) BNS] and 120-B IPC [Section 61(2) BNS] at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur, Punjab (Annexure P-1).

1.1.

The petitioner asserts that he is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that he has no nexus whatsoever with the alleged commission of the offences and has been arrayed as an accused in a wholly mechanical manner, without any proper

-:2:- application of mind and merely on the basis of conjectures and suspicion. It is, therefore, submitted that no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is either warranted or necessary.

2.

It is further contended that co-accused Ashwani Kumar Dhir has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 08.09.2025 and 27.09.2025. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has neither committed any act of cheating or forgery nor entered into any criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons for the commission of the alleged offences. On these premises, it is urged that the petitioner deserves to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition and has filed a detailed status report controverting the averments made on behalf of the petitioner.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the paper-book, including the status report and the material placed on record, with the requisite care and circumspection. 5.

A perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations against the applicant-accused and co-accused Achhra Singh are that they entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 10 Biswa 6 Biswasis in favour of the complainant on 28.02.2023 for a total sale consideration of 26,00,000/-. At the time of execution of the agreement, the complainant allegedly paid a sum of 7,00,000/- as earnest money, comprising 2,00,000/- in cash and 5,00,000/- through Cheques No. 730054 and 730055, the balance sale consideration being payable at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, which was fixed for 30.11.2023. Prior to the stipulated date, the applicant-accused and Achhra Singh allegedly demanded an

-:3:- additional sum of 2,30,000/-, and upon the complainant seeking extension of time for execution of the sale deed, the said amount was paid on 01.12.2023, whereupon the target date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 01.03.2024.

5.1.

It is further alleged that in February, 2024, the applicant informed the complainant that co-accused Achhra Singh had been confined in jail and, therefore, the sale deed could not be executed. Subsequently, when the complainant, in May, 2025, again requested the applicant to secure the execution of the sale deed by producing Achhra Singh from judicial custody, the applicant allegedly replied that Achhra Singh continued to remain incarcerated and that the complainant was free to take whatever action he deemed appropriate. The complainant thereafter allegedly discovered that the very same property had already been transferred through a registered sale deed executed in favour of Gurdeep Singh for a sale consideration of 46,00,000/- .

It is alleged that out of the said consideration, a sum of 28,00,000/- was credited into the account of the applicant-accused, while the remaining amount of 18,50,000/- was transferred into the account of his relative, Jaibinder Singh. The gravamen of the allegations is that the applicant-accused, in active connivance with Jaibinder Singh and the other accused, fraudulently procured the execution of the sale deed by impersonating Achhra Singh, despite the latter being lodged in judicial custody in FIR No. 64 dated 22.03.2023, registered at Police Station City-I, Sangrur. The impugned sale deed is further alleged to have been attested by Ashwani Kumar Dhir and Gurmeet Singh, on the basis whereof the present FIR came to be registered.

-:4:- 6.

A careful consideration of the status report prima facie discloses that an amount of 28,00,000/- was credited to the account of the applicant-accused, whereas a further sum of 18,50,000/- was deposited into the account of Jaibinder Singh, who is stated to be closely related to the applicant. The material collected during the course of investigation further prima facie indicates that the impugned sale deed was executed by resorting to impersonation, as Achhra Singh was admittedly in judicial custody in another criminal case on the date of execution of the sale deed. The allegations against the applicant are not confined merely to the receipt of the sale consideration but extend to his active participation in the alleged criminal conspiracy whereby the complainant was dishonestly deprived of the earnest money already paid and a subsequent sale deed was allegedly procured through fraudulent impersonation of Achhra Singh. 6.1.

The State has specifically contended that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is indispensable for unearthing the larger conspiracy and, in particular, for ascertaining the identity of the person who impersonated Achhra Singh at the time of execution and registration of the impugned sale deed. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the alleged offence is stated to have been committed, the prima facie material collected during investigation, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for an effective and meaningful investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant the exercise of the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

-:5:- 7.

Consequent upon the final adjudication of the present petition, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or connected with the instant proceedings, shall also stand disposed of. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 30.06.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No