Punjab and Haryana HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Accused in NRI Land Fraud Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rejected the anticipatory bail applications of two accused who were allegedly involved in the registration of an illegal sale deed, where the buyer was impersonated. A Single Judge Bench, led by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, held that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicated the accused were part of a larger conspiracy to usurp the properties of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).

Background

The case revolves around a property in Village Noorpur Bet-2, owned by an NRI. The buyer had made an appointment to register a sale deed for this property. However, at the time of registration, an impersonator appeared in place of the actual buyer, accompanied by his advocate. The impersonator presented a sale deed drafted by the advocate, which was then registered.

Upon becoming suspicious, the buyer’s advocate obtained the original sale deed and inquired with the Registration Clerk about the impersonation. It was discovered that the Sub-Registrar had certified the impersonator as the seller at endorsement 1 on the sale deed. At endorsement 2, the Sub-Registrar also certified a witness and one of the accused as witnesses, even though the first witness was not present and did not sign the sale deed or have his photograph affixed. Instead, the impersonator’s advocate and another accused signed and affixed their photographs on the sale deed.

The Registration Clerk did not verify the witnesses and proceeded to register the sale deed. The buyer or his representative did not raise any objections regarding the registration with changed witnesses. Subsequently, a report was received from the Tehsildar concerned, Vigilance Bureau, Mohali, which led to the filing of an FIR under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Registration Act, 1908.

Analysis

The Court noted that the property in question, measuring 14 kanals and worth several crores, was owned by an NRI. The sale deed was executed for Rs. 30.20 Lakhs, with cheques worth Rs. 30 Lakhs never presented for encashment. The Court found it strange that the Sub-Registrar allowed the presentation of cheques instead of demand drafts at the time of execution of the sale deed.

The appointment for registration was taken by the first witness on behalf of the buyer. However, this witness did not appear. Instead, the impersonator’s advocate appeared and identified the parties as marginal witnesses. One of the accused identified the impersonator as the seller and owner of the property. The Court also noted that the impersonator’s advocate, a co-accused, played a similar role.

Further, the CCTV footage from the Sub-Registrar's office showed that the accused were present during the registration of the sale deed. One of the co-accused disclosed how the money was distributed among the accused persons.

The Court stated that the facts and circumstances indicated that the accused and other co-accused were part of a larger conspiracy to usurp the properties of NRIs. The real owner was unaware of the fraud when the sale deed was executed in favor of the co-accused by way of impersonation. The Court emphasized that no sale consideration was exchanged, and custodial interrogation was necessary to establish the roles of the other co-accused, including revenue officials.

The Court highlighted that this case exemplifies a disturbing trend of exploitation of NRIs, particularly those who cannot visit India frequently or manage their properties. Such property owners are often defrauded through forged documents and misuse of Powers of Attorney, leading to the sale of their properties at undervalued rates. The scale of this deceit is symptomatic of systemic abuse, where absence is weaponized and legal safeguards are routinely undermined.

These offenses are rooted in a breach of trust and stand on a different pedestal than conventional criminal offenses. They not only impact the personal and financial security of the victims but also have cascading effects on public trust in the real estate ecosystem and the economic stability of the State. The gravity of such acts extends far beyond individual transactions, corroding institutional credibility and social conscience. Therefore, the Court held that it could not afford to treat such cases lightly when considering the grant of bail.

Given the active participation of the accused and the criminal antecedents of one of the accused, the Court found no grounds to grant anticipatory bail and rejected both applications.

Case Details

[Bagel Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 23740 of 2025, decided on 19-05-2025]

Advocates

For the petitioner: Karan Bansal, Raghav Puggal, Karan Puggal, Atul Goyal

For the respondent: DAG of Punjab Sandeep Kumar, Rajiv Malhotra, and Manan Khetarpal