Inderjit Kaur vs State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J.

Since the abovementioned three petitions arise out of the same FIR involving same facts and seek identical relief, they are being taken up together and are being decided by this common order.

Through these petitions, filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioners seek concession of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 67 dated 06.05.2025 registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station Saha, District Ambala.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by complainant Bhupinderjit Singh alleging that two plots were purchased in the same vicinity at village Bihta in the name of his mother Swaran Kaur and daughter Monika way back in the year 1985. Sale deeds were duly registered. His mother died on 05.02.2008. Some days back, he had visited village Bihta with intent to sell the plots owned by his mother as well as his daughter and came to know that the said plots had been sold to some other persons by two registered sale deeds dated 30.12.2008 and 24.03.2009 respectively. Both these plots had been sold by way of impersonation of his deceased mother and daughter. On making of inquiries, he came to know that the plot owned by his daughter was sold through the property dealers Mam Chand (Chammiya) and Baljinder. By alleging that in connivance with the purchasers and other persons, the above named Baljinder and Mam Chand (Chammiya) had cheated him and committed offence of forgery, he prayed for taking action in the matter.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During the course of investigation, the statements of the purchasers had been recorded. The complainant recorded his supplementary statement on the basis of which, petitioner Gurwinder Singh was nominated as the prime accused being dealer who orchestrated the entire fraud by identifying the two plots belonging to the deceased Swaran Kaur and her daughter Monika. It was also found that he arranged forged identity documents and affidavits and associated petitioner Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi to impersonate Swaran Kaur for execution of Sale Deed No.831, whereas he associated petitioner Inderjit Kaur to impersonate Monika for execution of Sale Deed No.1140. Petitioner Gurwinder Singh had surrendered before the Illaqa Magistrate, Ambala on 16.04.2026 and was thereafter formally arrested. Petitioner Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi was arrested on 02.05.2026, whereas petitioner Inderjit Kaur was arrested on 18.05.2026. After completion of investigation, the challan/final report against the petitioners was presented before the learned trial Court on 15.06.2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They were not named in the FIR. There is inordinate delay of about 16-17 years in registration of the FIR, which has not been satisfactorily explained. It was further argued that no recovery was effected from petitioner Paramjeet Kaur @ Pammi, while only a small amount of Rs.3,000 was allegedly recovered from petitioner Inderjit Kaur. There is no independent material or identity proof conclusively establishing that the petitioners were the persons who impersonated the actual owners. Learned counsel also pointed out that the statements of the purchasers do not attribute any role of negotiation, inducement or receipt of sale consideration to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the investigation is complete and challan has already been presented. The prosecution case is primarily based upon documentary evidence. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is no more required. The offences are triable by the Magistrate. Conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable time as the prosecution has cited 26 witnesses, out of whom, none has been examined so far. The petitioners are in custody since long. Their continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. Hence, it is urged that the petitions deserve to be allowed and the petitioners deserve to be released on bail.

Separate status reports have been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that the allegations are serious and grave in nature and relate to a planned fraud and impersonation in respect of valuable immovable property. The petitioners, in connivance with the each other, facilitated the sale of the plots by impersonating the deceased mother and daughter of the complainant. They have actively participated in commission of the subject offences. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled against them, they are not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners are alleged to have participated in the sale of the plots in question by impersonating the original owners. However, it is not disputed that the FIR was registered after delay of about 16-17 years from the dates of the alleged sale deeds. The petitioners were not named in the FIR and were subsequently nominated during investigation. The investigation already stands completed and the challan has been presented before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has cited 26 witnesses, none of whom has been examined so far. Therefore, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. The case against the petitioners is primarily based upon the sale deeds and other documentary material already collected by the investigating agency. The petitioners have remained in custody since long. No further custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued incarceration of the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be released on regular bail on furnishing adequate personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for deciding the present bail petitions and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Let a photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.