Dalep Kumar 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 their representations, 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 the petitioner, who was represented to be the owner of the property and having similar name as of the petitioner. However, subsequently, the complainant came to know that the account holder Dilip Kumar, i.e. the present petitioner was not the actual owner of the property. An inquiry was conducted, which revealed that the accused Amardeep Singh, who was the main conspirator and was in possession of certain documents pertaining to the property actually owned by Dilip Kumar and his wife, Anjana was the main conspirator who by misusing and fabricating the said documents, by affixing the photograph of some other person and in connivance with the present petitioner, whose bank account was used for transfer of the money by the complainant, had induced the complainant to part with the money on the premise of purchase 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 petitioner. A false receipt of Rs.24,75,000/-, purportedly issued by the real owner, was also prepared by affixing the signatures of an imposter. After conducting the aforesaid inquiry, the aforementioned FIR was registered. Accused Amardeep Singh @ Nippi was arrested on 20.01.2026. He suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that, in connivance with him, accused Aman 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 petitioner through WhatsApp to the property dealer, Puneet Garg, whereafter the money paid by the complainant was transferred into the said bank account. The petitioner 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 this case. He is a poor and uneducated person who worked as a helper in a garment shop. He was induced by the co-accused on the premise of granting him some benefit under a government housing scheme floated by the Government of India and was assured that an amount of rupees three lakh would be credited into his bank account, out of which he would receive approximately a sum of rupees fifty thousand. Believing the assurance so given by accused Jaspal Matharu to be true, he forwarded his bank account details to accused Amandeep Singh Deol, who further shared the same with co-accused Amardeep Singh @ Nippy. These details were sent to Garg Associates and an amount of rupees 25,70,000/- was transferred into his bank account. Without having any knowledge about the intentions of the co-accused, the petitioner was made to transfer an amount of Rs. 18,25,000/- to the bank account of co-accused Jaspal Singh Matharu, as per the instructions of the co-accused, and another amount of Rs. 4,99,000/- to the bank account of one Kala Mani, thereby retaining no part of the alleged amount. It was co-accused Dominic Sahota who had impersonated himself as the actual owner of the property. The petitioner had neither impersonated any person nor executed any false document. He did not derive any benefit from the transfer of money into his bank account, and the same was merely misused by the principal offenders by exploiting the fact that his name matched with that of the actual property owner. It is further argued that the petitioner has spent a period of more than 10 months in custody. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. He was a beneficiary to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- only. His antecedents are clean. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the participation of the petitioner in the conspiracy hatched with the co-accused to deprive the complainant of his money is prima facie established. He had facilitated his bank account to the co-accused for the purpose of receiving the amount of Rs.24,75,000/- transferred by the complainant. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. 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, who was having the same name as that of the owner of the property which was projected to be sold by the original owner, had allegedly connived with the co-accused and provided his bank account, in which an amount of Rs. 23,75,000/- was transferred through RTGS from the bank account of the complainant-petitioner. The said amount was paid as earnest money by complainant, in respect of the proposed property transaction. The allegations prima facie make out a case against the petitioner of being a part of the conspiracy to cheat the complainant. His involvement in the transaction and use of his bank account for receiving the amount paid by the complainant party stand prima facie established. It has, however, also been revealed that out of the amount of Rs. 27,75,000/-, an amount of Rs. 18,25,000/- was transferred to the bank account of Jaspal Singh Matharu and an amount of Rs. 4,99,000/- was transferred to the bank account of Kala Mani shortly after the same was credited to the petitioner’s bank account, thereby prima facie showing that he was not the beneficiary of the entire amount. It is only on thorough assessment of the evidence brought on record that any definite conclusion regarding the petitioner’s complicity in the commission of the offence of forgery by preparing false and fabricated documents can be drawn. The petitioner is in custody since 04.11.2025. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Taking into consideration the role attributed to the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy, the period spent by him in custody and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

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.