Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 February, 2026
CRM-M-1183-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
209
*****
CRM-M-1183-2026
Date of decision : 27.02.2026
Date of uploading : 27.02.2026
Amarjit Singh .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Simranjeet Singh Sarwara, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Mr. Anil K. Sagar, Advocate for the complainant.
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present 3nd petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.12 dated 17.03.2025 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Handesra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
"At this time, an application No. 8163/S./S.S.P. dated 23-12- 2024 by Ajaib Singh, son of Ajmor Singh, resident of village Paragpur Derabassi, Mohali, was received through post office for a circular. Hon'ble SSP Sahib Mohali Subject: Application against Gurdeep Singh son of Mr. Sarwan Singh and Harjinder Singh son of Mr. Gurdeep Singh and Amarjit Singh (Mobile No.: 8146099560) son of Harjinder Singh resident of village: Tasimbli, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, for filing a case of fraud and embezzlement of the applicant's money with the intention of cheating. Sir, it is requested that the applicant is a resident of village Paragpur and is a law- abiding person. The said villager expressed his desire to sell his land to the applicant. The applicant agreed to purchase the land after viewing the land. Gurdeep Singh entered into an agreement to sell the land of 38 bighas-13 biswas owned and occupied by him on 11.07.2022 for Rs. 33,10,000/- per acre (i.e. 4 bighas) with the applicant. At the time of writing the agreement, Gurdeep Singh had received Rs.
1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:18:58 ::: CRM-M-1183-2026 -2- 35,00,000/- (five lakh rupees) in the presence of witnesses and the date of registration of the deed was fixed as 11.07.2023. The agreement also contained a condition that Gurdeep Singh would be responsible for paying the bank loan himself before the registry. Gurdeep Singh demanded eighty lakh rupees as a buyer and other earnest money before the expiry date and said that I am ready to get the power of attorney registered in favor of the applicant regarding my land. So, the applicant paid one lakh rupees in cash to Gurdeep Singh on 05.04.2023 and extended the registration period till 06.03.2024. After which on 05.05.2023, Gurdeep Singh got his general power of attorney written in favor of the applicant regarding the land and got it verified by the presence of Sub-Registrar Dera Bassi on 10.05.2023. That accused Harjinder Singh on date: 21.12.2023 signed a power of attorney for his share of land 04 bighas-02 biswas-02 biswasi with the buyer and on date 21.12.2023 itself Harjinder Singh had given his affidavit regarding receipt of money because Harjinder Singh had got more money for his land. Gurdeep Singh and Harjinder Singh have a total land of approximately 11.5 acre. Then on 14.02.2024 and 17.02.2024, the accused had made applicant pay his loan towards bank, which the buyer applicant had transferred from his bank account. Then on 06.03.2024, the registration could not be done because there was an entry regarding lien and dispute in the revenue record, then Gurdeep Singh demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- and asked for an extension of the period. Then both the parties extended the period of the registration dated 06.03.2024 to till 20.03.2025 and also wrote in writing about the recovery of a total of Rs. 3,15,62,443/- (three crore fifteen lakh sixty-two thousand four hundred and forty-three) and it was also agreed that After taking the NOC from the bank and getting the objection recorded in the revenue records cancelled, the registry will be bound to get registered by the due date 20.03.2025 and it was also agreed that the Senior Superintendent of Police SAS Nagar has put a correct mark and written DSP Spl Br. In compliance with the Standing Order No. 03/2024 and BNSS-2023 issued by the Honorable DGP Punjab, action should be taken as per the law and the report should be sent to this office. On which the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Branch and Criminal Intelligence, District SAS Nagar has written in his conclusion report, "From Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Branch and Criminal Intelligence, District SAS Nagar 233/5R/DSP (SBCI) SAS NAGAR Inside 25.2.25 Subject Application No. 8163/S/SSP dated 23/12/2024 regarding Ajaib Singh son of Ajmer Singh resident of village Paragpur Derabassi Mohali. Shri Mann Ji, it is requested that the application No. 8163/S/SSP dated 23/12/2024 regarding Ajaib Singh son of Ajmer Singh resident of village Paragpur Derabassi District This office has been contacted for investigation regarding SAS Nagar. During the investigation of the application, the applicant has been examined and statements have been recorded. The statement of applicant, the witnesses and the documents submitted by the applicant are part of the application. The respondent was issued permission to attend the examination on 03-01-2025, 08-01-2025 and 25- 01-2025. The respondent Amarjit Singh signed the first notice, but despite that notice, the examination did not take place. The respondent Harjinder Singh is the father of the first respondent Amarjit Singh and the third respondent Gurdeep Singh is his grandfather. All three respondents live together in the same house. Amarjit Singh had given assurance after signing notice that he would bring the other respondents along. The second notice was issued to attend on 10-01-2025. Respondent Amarjit Singh was not found, the woman who was present at the house refused to tell her and even refused to sign the consent. About which the consent was filed. Employee Haldar Harnam Singh 1696/S.A.S. Nagar filed DDR No. 16 dated 12-01-2025 CCT. NS Police Station Handesra, a copy of which is attached to the application. The third consent was sent by the undersigned reader A.S. I. Harish Kumar on his mobile phone to the mobile phone number 81460-99560 of the respondent Amarjit Singh through Whats App, which even after reading the message, the respondent did not join the investigation. Therefore, it has been proved that the respondents do not have any facts to give in their defense or the respondents do not want to give any answer in their defense. From the investigation of the application, it was found that the applicant alleged that On 11-07-2022, he had made a deal to purchase 38 bighas 13 visva land in village Tasimbli at Rs. 33 lakh 10 thousand per acre (4 bighas) with Gurdeep Singh, son of Sarwan Singh, resident of village Tasimbli. He had given Rs. 35 lakh in cash to Gurdeep Singh and had signed a document to get the registration done by 11- 07- 2023. But on 05-04-2023, at the request of Gurdeep Singh, the last date for getting the registration done was extended to 06-03-2024 by giving him another Rs. 80 lakh in cash. On this document, Gurdeep Singh affixed his left hand, the buyer Ajaib Singh and the witnesses Amarjit Singh and Gurjit Singh affixed their signatures as witnesses. The respondent Gurdeep Singh had appointed the applicant Ajaib Singh as the general trustee of the said land through the power of attorney dated 05-05- 2023. But later the said power of attorney was cancelled by Gurdeep Singh. On 06-03- 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:18:58 ::: CRM-M-1183-2026 -3- 2024, Gurdeep Singh collected Rs. 2 lakh in cash from the applicant for his domestic needs and extended the last date for registration to 20-03-2025. Gurdeep Singh also put his thumb on this document. The applicant and witnesses Gurjit Singh and Buta Singh also signed. Meanwhile, the applicant came to know that Gurdeep Singh, his son Harjinder Singh and grandson Amarjit Singh had made a deal with several parties to sell the said land and obtained statements. The respondent had made a contract for the sale of two acre of land with his agent Puppi and had also received the earnest money. On the advice of Gurdeep Singh, the applicant got the said contract/statement dismissed by paying Rs. 45 lakhs and Rs. 15 lakhs respectively to the said agent Puppi. Similarly, Gurdeep Singh had obtained an earnest money from Ranjit Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and had the contract regarding the said land dismissed. The applicant got it dismissed by paying Rs. 55 lakhs to Ranjit Singh. A third contract was made by Gurdeep Singh with Asis Kumar, a resident of Patiala and had also received the earnest money. The applicant got the said affidavit dismissed by paying Rs. 35 lakhs to Asis Kumar. For his domestic work and agriculture, Gurdeep Singh received (Rs. 30 lakhs in cash) separately from the applicant. In addition, Rs. 1520973/- and Rs. 341470/- were deposited in the loan account of Gurdeep Singh etc. by the applicant through RTGS. Thus, Rs. 3,15,62443/- had been paid by the applicant to the respondent Gurdeep Singh. Since the amount was more than the value of the land, the second respondent Harjinder Singh on 21-12-2023 signed a contract for the land area of 4 bigh 2 visva 2 visvasi bahad village Tsimbali with the applicant for full and final payment. This document was signed by the respondent Harjinder Singh, the applicant Ajaib Singh and the witnesses Harbans Singh and Buta Singh. The agreements/declarations made by Gurdeep Singh in favour of various persons for the purpose of land acquisition were cancelled by the applicant by paying money, in this regard an affidavit was also given to the applicant by the respondent Harjinder Singh son of Gurdeep Singh resident of village Tasimbli, which proves that on the instructions of the respondents, the applicant paid money to various parties and got the said land agreements cancelled and the disputes of the respondents ended. After receiving all these payments, Gurdeep Singh has revoked the power of attorney given to the applicant and despite receiving Rs. 3,15,62443/- from the applicant, the respondents Gurdeep Singh and Harjinder Singh have clearly refused to get registry done. To get all this money, the respondent Amarjit Singh used to meet the applicant along with his father Harjinder Singh and grandfather Gurdeep Singh. On 05-04-2023, the document regarding extension of the last date of registration till 06-03-2024 by paying Rs. 80 lakh in cash and other charges is also there, but the signature of Amarjit Singh is also there. In the land sale agreement made with the applicant, there is no land in the name of Amarjit Singh, but Amarjit Singh is the mastermind of this whole conspiracy and is also the beneficiary of the money obtained through fraud. All the three respondents Gurdeep Singh son of Sarwan Singh, Harjinder Singh son of Gurdeep Singh and Amarjit Singh son of Harjinder Singh, residents of village Tasimbali, are members of the same family. Who have committed fraud with the applicant under a well-planned conspiracy. Conclusion:- Investigation has proved that the applicant Ajaib Singh has paid a total of Rs. 3.15,62,443/- (three crore fifteen lakhs, sixty- two thousand four hundred and forty-three rupees) to the third party either himself or at his request. Witnesses Buta Singh, Gurjit Singh, Harbans Singh and Rajinder Singh have also confirmed this in their affidavit. Respondent Gurdeep Singh had on 11-07- 2022 offered to sell his 38 bighas 13 visva land at the rate of Rs. 30 lakh ten thousand per bigha (four bighas) and entered into a written agreement on which Gurdeep Singh and the witnesses have their signatures. Apart from this, Harjinder Singh son of Gurdeep Singh also agreed to sell his owned land measuring 4 bighs 2 visva 2 viswasi with the applicant and stated in the written agreement dated 21-12- 2023 that he had collected the full and final price of the land from the buyer/applicant Ajaib Singh. This agreement also bears the signatures of Harjinder Singh, Ajaib Singh and the witness. The witness has also confirmed the validity of the agreements in his statements. Since the respondent had collected the entire price of the land. Therefore, a power of attorney was also made in favor of the applicant so that the applicant could get the land registered whenever he wanted even in the absence of the respondent. Now the power of attorney has also been revoked by the respondent. Revocation of the power of attorney is not a crime in itself, but the malice of the respondent party is clearly visible in the revocation of the power of attorney given after collecting the entire value of the property. The respondent Gurdeep Singh and the respondent Harjinder Singh, despite collecting the entire value, have not registered the land in favor of the applicant nor have they returned any money legally. Gurdeep Singh, Harjinder Singh and Amarjit Singh have jointly committed the crime of fraud and breach of trust with the applicant. Recommendation:- On the basis of the application of the petitioner Ajaib Singh, it is 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:18:58 ::: CRM-M-1183-2026 -4- recommended to register a case under sections 406, 420, 120- B IPC against the respondents Gurdeep Singh son of Sarwan Singh, Harjinder Singh son of Gurdeep Singh and Amarjit Singh son of Harjinder Singh, residents of village Tsimbli, Tehsil Dera Bassi, district SAS Nagar at Police Station Handesra, district SAS Nagar. If approved, then the Chief Officer of Police Station Handesra may be ordered to register a case and investigate. Correct. - Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Branch and Criminal Intelligence, district SAS Nagar. On which the Honorable Senior Superintendent of Police District SAS Nagar has signed and written SHO Handesra to register FIR & investigate. On which the case against the above mentioned crime and the above mentioned case has been registered and the completed record has been made at the police station. The copy of the FIR is being sent to the superior police officers and the Area Magistrate Sahib Derabassi ji through post. The control room Mohali and the circle officer Sahib have been informed by telephone. The original application along with the investigation report is also being handed over to the Chief Officer of the police station, Havaldarder Bhupinder Singh, No. 1001/SAS Nagar for further investigation."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 24.05.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the background of the FIR in question pertains to a property/civil dispute. Learned counsel has also submitted that, upon culmination of the investigation, the challan has been filed and the trial is underway. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 26.02.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
4.1 Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are direct and serious in nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner owes a huge amount of money to the complainant side. It has also been submitted that the complainant is yet to be examined as a prosecution witness and, in the 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:18:58 ::: CRM-M-1183-2026 -5- event of the petitioner being released on regular bail, there is every likelihood that he may abscond from the process of law and may also interfere with the prosecution witnesses, especially the complainant.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under:
"10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.
11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.
12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:18:58 ::: CRM-M-1183-2026 -6- of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution."
6.1. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as under:-
"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end."
6.2. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:18:58 ::: CRM-M-1183-2026 -7-
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."
6.3. The petitioner was arrested on 24.05.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 22.07.2025. Total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.4. Indubitably, the present petition is the third attempt on behalf of the petitioner for securing regular bail. The last one bearing no. CRM-M- 41588-2025 was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-2). However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstance of the case in hand especially keeping in view the extended custody and pace of trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:18:58 ::: CRM-M-1183-2026 -8- Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under:
"10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:
I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non- prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.
IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s).
V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed."
6.5. As per custody certificate dated 26.02.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 9 months & is not shown to be involved in any other case.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:18:58 ::: CRM-M-1183-2026 -9- CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
27.02.2026
ja
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2026 00:18:58 :::