Gurwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.37245 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 13.08.2026 Gurwinder Singh …..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***** Present:- Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.

Prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.151 dated 11.09.2025 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Ludhiana.

Custody certificate dated 10.08.2026 filed in Court today, is taken on record.

On a complaint submitted by one Jatinder Kumar, the FIR in question was registered. The complainant alleged that he, being the attorney holder of the legal heirs of his maternal family, has rights over ancestral property measuring approximately 1700 square yards comprised in Khasra Nos.425, 426, 574 and 575, situated at Village Peeru Banda, Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana. He alleged that Manjit Singh, in connivance with Gurwinder Singh, Patwari (the petitioner) and other private persons, had manipulated and relied upon forged and fabricated sale deeds/registrations with the intention to usurp the aforesaid property. The complainant further alleged that the sale deeds relied upon by the accused pertained to different Khasra numbers containing inconsistent boundaries and dimensions and were procured by concealing material facts despite the pendency of civil litigation and interim protection granted by this Court. He also asserted that the land claimed by the accused actually falls within Khasra Nos.428 and 497, which, as per official revenue records and enquiry reports, comprise of a public road and park, thereby rendering the claim of the accused false and untenable. The complainant further alleged that Manjit Singh had subsequently executed additional sale deeds in the name of his wife Davinder Kaur in collusion with Gurwinder Singh Patwari (the petitioner) by suppressing the pendency of Court proceedings and by obtaining mutation and revenue entries on the basis of false representations. It was further alleged that Gurwinder Singh, Patwari (the petitioner) had earlier been arrested by the Vigilance Bureau in a bribery case and that several enquiries conducted by the Deputy Commissioner and other competent authorities on different occasions had supported the complainant’s stand regarding the disputed property. The complainant requested that the Revenue Department records be thoroughly examined, the alleged forged sale deeds and registrations be declared invalid and appropriate legal action be initiated against Gurwinder Singh, Patwari (the petitioner), Manjit Singh and the other persons involved for preparing and using forged documents, cheating and grabbing the ancestral property by fraudulent means.

The petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2026 and is in custody since then.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that all co-accused, who were the actual beneficiaries of the sale deeds in question, have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide orders dated 25.02.2026 and 20.04.2026 (Annexures P-9 and P-10 respectively). Learned counsel submits that the alleged Jamabandis were prepared as far back as in 2016, 2023 and 2025. He submits that the case is based upon documentary evidence and no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. He submits that the investigation and consequently, the trial will take a long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application stating that earlier also, the petitioner was involved in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act in which he was an accused, though he was granted bail by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 22.05.2024 passed in CRM-M No.22734 of 2024 (Annexure P-7). He submits that being a public servant, the petitioner should not have committed the offences alleged to have been committed by him. Learned counsel submits that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may try to interfere with the investigation and may also abscond.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

Concededly, the beneficiaries of the sale deeds were granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide orders dated 25.02.2026 and 20.04.2026 (Annexures P-9 and P-10 respectively). Dr. Manjit Singh Komal, who is stated to have conspired with the petitioner while he was posted as a Halqa Patwari, is also one of the persons, who has been granted anticipatory bail.

Be that as it may, the case is based largely upon documentary evidence. As to whether the petitioner had conspired with Dr. Manjit Singh Komal and other beneficiaries or not, shall be determined when the trial concludes. He is in custody since 04.06.2026. More than two months have gone by. Investigation and consequently, the trial shall still take a considerable long time to conclude. In the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) August 13, 2026 JUDGE