Amardeep Singh @ Nippi vs State Of Punjab

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 17 dated 06.03.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS at Police Station NRI at District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

As per the allegations, the complainant- Gopal Chanchal, who is a British citizen and his son, were induced by Vishwajit Singh and Puneet Garg, proprietors of Garg Associates, to purchase a property situated at Village Bari, SAS Nagar, on the representation that the same was owned by one Dilip Kumar and that all the documents pertaining to the ownership of the said property were genuine and correct. Believing them, the complainant firstly transferred a sum of Rs.50,000/- as token money to them and thereafter, an amount of Rs.23,75,000/- was transferred through RTGS into the bank account of Dilip Kumar, who was represented to be the owner of the property. However, subsequently, the complainant came to know that the account holder Dilip Kumar was not the actual owner of the property. An inquiry was conducted, which revealed that the petitioner who was in possession of certain documents pertaining to the property actually owned by Dilip Kumar and his wife Anjana, was the main conspirator. By misusing and fabricating the said documents by affixing the photograph of some other person and in connivance with the accused Dilip Kumar, whose bank account was used for transfer of the money by the complainant and some other persons, the complainant was induced to part with the money on the premise of sale of the property. It was also revealed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was transferred through Google Pay to Vishwajit Singh of Garg Associates as token money, whereas the remaining amount of Rs.23,75,000/- was transferred into the bank account of the accused Dilip Kumar. A receipt of Rs.24,25,000/-, purportedly issued by the real owner, was also prepared by affixing the signatures of an imposter and was given to complainant. On the basis of this inquiry, the aforementioned FIR was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2026. He suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that, in connivance with him, accused Amandeep Singh Deol had produced one Dominic Sahota, resident of Amritsar, before the complainant by falsely projecting him as the real owner of the property namely Dalip Kumar. Accused Amandeep Singh Deol had also sent the bank account details of the accused Dalip Kumar through WhatsApp to the property dealer Puneet Garg, and the money paid by the complainant was transferred into the said bank account. Accused Dalip Kumar was arrested on 04.11.2025. On interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement admitting the factum of providing his bank account details to the co-accused. The investigation now stands completed.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution version is highly unnatural and improbable. He is not a beneficiary of any transaction. No amount of money was paid by the complainant to him. The ingredients of the offence of cheating are not attracted qua the petitioner. He is in custody for a period of more than 08 months. The trial is likely to take considerable time. No useful purpose would be served by retaining him in custody any further. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is a habitual offender and is involved in similar other offences. As many as seven FIRs have been registered against him and he has been held guilty and convicted in one of such cases. It is argued that the petitioner had entered into a conspiracy with the co-accused with a dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and had duped him of a substantial amount of money by producing an impersonator as the owner of the property which was to be sold to the complainant. His active complicity in the crime stands prima facie established. It is further argued that the present case is not merely a case of cheating but also involves acts of forgery on the basis of false and fabricated documents. There are chances of the petitioner’s committing similar offences, absconding or intimidating the witnesses if he is extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

The petitioner, in conspiracy with the co-accused, is alleged to have induced the complainant to part with an amount of more than Rs.24 lakhs on the representation that a property belonging to the real owner, namely Dalip Kumar, was being sold to him. During the course of the alleged conspiracy, a person was arranged to impersonate the real owner and an amount of Rs.23,75,000/- was transferred into the bank account operated in the name of the impersonator. Accused Dominic Sahota was impersonated as the real owner so as to induce the complainant to part with the aforesaid amount. The antecedents of the petitioner are also not clean. He is shown to be involved in seven other cases registered on allegations relating to offences of cheating and forgery. In these circumstances, the apprehension that he may commit similar offences if extended benefit of bail cannot be said to be unfounded. The case is still at its nascent stage. The complainant and other material witnesses are yet to be examined. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.