Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

REEMA SAINI

2026.07.21 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-26660 of 2026(O&M) 2

Since then, he had been looking after the property and had constructed boundary wall around the plots and a room for Gardener. Accused persons namely Ganga Bahadur Bhandari, Gurpiar Singh, Pritam Singh, Jodha Singh and unkonwns persons were illegally staking claim over the aforesaid plot and had taken away tress standing in the plots, besides having damaged the wall. In connivance with other other and officials of the Revenue Department, they got prepared false and fabricated Jamabandis and mutations on the basis of forged documents. Accused, in connivance with each other, with some person impersonating as Rohan Lal since deceased son of Ramji Dass, sold the aforesaid plot of the complainant to accused Ganga Bahadur Bhandari and Gurpiar Singh, vide sale deeds number 2024/2025/128/1/746 dated 16.05.2024. Infact, Roshan Lal (since deceased) was neither owner of the aforesaid plot nor was in possession of the same. The impersonator was identified by Pritam Singh, Nambardar and Jodha Singh, in the fraudulent transfer. Only Jamabandi for the year 2019-2020 was attached as proof of ownership without any reference of sale deed. There were many other flaws in the sale deed. The accused persons got the aforesaid sale deed executed through someone who impersonated Roshan Lal, who was dead before execution of the sale deed.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case due to property dispute between the complainant and some other persons. He had no concern with impersonation and execution of the documents. Rather, was a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration having purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 01.07.2024. Petitioner verified the title documents

¶6

REEMA SAINI 2026.07.21 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶7

CRM-M-26660 of 2026(O&M) 3

¶8

and the revenue entries before purchasing the property and had no reason to suspect impersonation. He had no role in preparation of any forged and fabricated document. He could not be held liable for alleged forgery committed by others. Allegations in the FIR were vague, general and omnibus and mere purchase of property could not incriminate the petitioner. Even if prosecution version was believed, petitioner did not participate in the alleged forgery. The case was predominately based on documents. Coaccused Gurpiar Singh, Narinder Singh had already been enlarged on regular bail while co-accused Pritam Singh Nambardar and, Jagdeepinder Singh were allowed anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for regular bail submitting that petitioner, though subsequent purchaser of the property, had purchased the same without any sale consideration which was clear from the sale deed which did not mention any cheque number. Moreover, he was involved in other cases. Petitioner, therefore, did not deserve the concession of bail.

¶10

Petitioner is said to be purchaser of the property in dispute from Gurpiar Singh who has since been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 16.10.2025. Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 22.02.2026. Investigation of the case is complete. Charges are yet to be framed. Clearly, trial is not likely to conclude soon. Considering the fact that petitioner’s vendor Gurpiar Singh is out on bail and co-accused Pritam Singh Nambardar who allegedly identified the person impersonating Roshal Lal on the sale deed, has been enlarged on anticipatory bail, petitioner too is entitled to bail on parity. In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶11

REEMA SAINI 2026.07.21 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶12

CRM-M-26660 of 2026(O&M) 4

¶13

Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012(2)

¶14

SCC 382, involvement of petitioner in one other criminal case cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

¶18

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

¶19

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶20

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

¶21

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶22

REEMA SAINI 2026.07.21 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶23

CRM-M-26660 of 2026(O&M) 5

¶24

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

¶25

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand

¶26

disposed of.