CRM-M-26710-2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 

CHANDIGARH

                    CRM-M-26710-2026

               Date of decision: 21.07.2026

Uploaded on: 21.07.2026

JAGTAR SINGH                           

... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH & ANOTHER  

...Respondents

CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present: Mr. R.S. Waraich (Rana), Advocate 

for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Toor, Sr. Advocate with 

Mr. Adhiraj Toor, Advocate 

for the respondent No.1/U.T., Chandigarh.

Ms. Taranjot Kaur, respondent No.2-in-person.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of

BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case

FIR No.0030 dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections

419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, 1860 (Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338,

336(3), 340(2), 61 of BNS, 2023) at Police Station Central Sector 17,

U.T., Chandigarh.

2.  A reply dated 08.05.2026 has been filed on behalf of the

petitioner by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same is taken on

record.    

CRM-M-26710-2026 -2-

3. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of

Taranjot Kaur D/o late Sh. Hardial Singh Sekhon and the same reads as

under:-

Sir, It is requested that one complaint No.ICMS/2025/043444

dated 19/12/2025 filed by Taranjot Kaur D/o Late Sh.Hardial

Singh Sekhon, resident of H.No.2792, Sector-7, Sector 62,

SAS Nagar, Pb. Against Jagtar Singh and etc. was

investigated by Police Station, which is as follows:- To 1.the

senior superintendent of Police, Chandigarh. 2.The Station

House Officer, Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh. Sub:-

Complaint against accused persons namely (1) Jagtar Singh

aged about 57 years S/o Sh. Amar Singh R/o House No. 276,

Darshan Avenue, Sultanwind, Amritsar (Pb.), Aadhaar Card

No. 6772-6158-4039, Mobile No. 99148-14863 and

impersonator (2) Taranjot Kaur R/o House No.579, Garden

Enclave, GT Road, Bypass, Amritsar and all the persons who

are involved in the fraud and producing false documents

pertaining to House No. 53, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh in the

Court under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B

along with other relevant Sections of IPC and BNS 2023. Sir,

1.That the above said complaint is being filed by Taranjot

Kaur D/o late Sh. Hardial Singh Sekhon and legal heir of late

Smt. Gurdip Kaur R/o House No. 2792, Phase-7, Sector 62,

SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2. That case pertains to the fraud

committed pertaining House No.53, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh.

3. That the applicant came to know about the case titled as

Jagtar Singh Vs. Gurdeep Kaur and another was filed by

Jagtar Singh when the applicant went to Estate Office, U.T.

Chandigarh on 21.04.2025 along with her Advocate namely

Ms. Reeta Shinghari where some unknown persons and

property dealers were there to inspect the same file and

informed the applicant that Sh. Jagtar Singh had already

CRM-M-26710-2026 -3-

purchased the above said property from the mother of the

applicant Smt. Gurdip Kaur. The applicant was given the

photocopy of the civil suit filed by the Jagtar Singh and the

applicant was asked to sell the above said property to Jagtar

Singh or to face dire consequences. Thus, the applicant came

to know that some unknown person using forged documents

and filed a civil suit before Dr. Parikshit Sharma, Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Chandigarh, to grab the property of the

applicant. The copy of the civil suit along with the annexures

are enclosed as Annexure A-1/1. 4. That some lady

impersonator as Taranjot Kaur has also submitted some

documents before the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh in the

year 2019 pertaining to the transfer of the above said

property where the above said impersonator Taranjot Kaur

shown her address as R/o House No. 579, Garden Enclave,

GT Road, Bypass, Amritsar. It is worth mentioning here the

plaintiff Jagtar Singh has also shown his address as House

No. 276, Darshan Avenue, Sultanwind, Amritsar, Punjab. This

shows that Jagtar Singh and impersonator Taranjot Kaur who

has given her address in the Estate Office, U.T. Chandigarh

as R/o Amritsar as mentioned above is having connivance

with Jagtar Singh to grab the property of the applicant

Taranjot Kaur. The applicant immediately filed an application

before the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh on 21.04.2025

informing that some fraud is being committed as the applicant

along with her brother has already applied for the transfer of

said property in their names being the legal heirs of Smt.

Gurdip Kaur W/o Sh. Hardial Singh Sekhon but the property

was not transferred as in the website it was being shown as

resumed and in the year 2025 the website was updated and

the resumption order has been set aside by the Estate Officer,

U.T. Chandigarh. The applicant also informed the Estate

Officer, U.T. Chandigarh that her brother has already

expired, so the applicant was informed that the fresh

CRM-M-26710-2026 -4-

application for the transfer has to be submitted. The applicant

requested the E.O., U.T. Chandigarh not to supply any

documents to any person except the applicant and not to

allow any person to check and inspect the file. The file was

immediately ordered to be sealed by the Estate Officer, U.T.

Chandigarh. The application dated 21.04.2025 moved by the

applicant before the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh is

enclosed as Annexure A-1. 5. That the House No. 53, Sector

8-A, Chandigarh was originally allotted in the name of Smt.

Varyam Kaur W/o Sh. Hardial Singh Guram and after death

of late Smt. Varyam Kaur on 08.12.1996 the above said

property was transferred in favour of her daughter Smt.

Gurdip Kaur. 6. That Smt. Gurdip Kaur was posted as IAS

Officer in various capacities in the State of Punjab and she

retired on 31.01.1996 from the post of Chairperson of School

and Colleges Tribunal. 7. That applicant father, namely Sh.

Hardial Singh Sekhon was an IPS Officer and late Sh.

Hardial Singh Sekhon expired during service. The applicant

father was lastly posted as Inspector General of Police,

Computerization, in Chandigarh. 8. That the above said

property was transferred in favour of Mrs. Gurdip Kaur

Sekhon wife of late Sh. Hardial Singh Sekhon. The copy of the

transfer letter dated 24.01.1997 is enclosed as Annexure A/2.

9. That Mrs. Gurdip Kaur W/o Sh. Hardial Singh Sekhon

expired on 22.11.2001. The copy of the death certificate of

late Smt. Gurdip Kaur is enclosed as Annexure A-3. 10. That

late Smt. Gurdip Kaur has two legal heirs i.e. applicant Ms.

Taranjot Kaur D/o late Sh. Hardial Singh Sekhon and late Sh.

Lajeshwar Singh, who has already expired on 13.07.2023.

The copy of the death certificate of late Sh. Lajeshwar Singh

is enclosed as Annexure A-4. 11. That late Sh. Lajeshwar

Singh has following legal heirs: a. Navdeep Kaur (wife) b.

Eveleen Kaur (daughter) 12. That the applicant along with

her said brother applied for the transfer of property in their

CRM-M-26710-2026 -5-

names vide application No. 119703 dated 20.02.2013. The

copy of the application No. 119703 dated 20.02.2013 is

enclosed as Annexure A-5. 13. That the address of the

applicant has been wrongly given by Jagtar Singh as R/o

House No. 53, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh as Mrs. Gurdip Kaur

through legal heir Taranjot Kaur, as the above said house has

already been rented out to the Government Department i.e.

Food Corporation of India which has been let out by the

grandmother of the applicant namely Smt. Varyam Kaur since

the year 1985 and till date Food Corporation of India is in

the possession of the tenanted premises. The applicant is

residing at House No. 2792, Phase-7, Sector 61, SAS Nagar,

Mohali, Punjab from the last 27 years. 14. That the applicant

is placing on record the lease agreement executed with Food

Corporation of India dated 15.10.1985 between Smt. Varyam

Kaur, Court Guardian of Ms. Taranjot Kaur (applicant) with

Food Corporation of India. The copy of the lease agreement

dated 15.10.1985 is enclosed as Annexure A-6. 15. That when

the summons were sent to the applicant they were never

received and summons were received back unserved as the

applicant in question was never residing in the above said

house. 16. That the plaintiff in order to play the fraud

informed the court that defendant No.1 late Smt. Gurdip Kaur

since deceased has expired, was impleaded through her sole

legal heir namely impersonator Taranjot Kaur and the said

impersonator Taranjot Kaur had already expired on

17.10.2024 and also informed that Taranjot Kaur does not

have any legal heirs and placed on record the copy of the

death certificate dated 16.11.2024 of the impersonator

Taranjot Kaur. The copy of the zimni order dated 29.01.2025

is enclosed as Annexure A-7. Thereafter, the case was

adjourned to 07.04.2025. 17. That copy of the death

certificate of impersonator Taranjot Kaur dated 17.10.2024 is

enclosed as Annexure A-8 where the address of impersonator

CRM-M-26710-2026 -6-

Taranjot Kaur has been shown as House No. 856, Lalheri

Road, Hardev Nagar, Khanna, Ludhiana. 18. That Jagtar

Singh has committed a fraud which is very much clear that at

the time of filing of the case address of the Taranjot Kaur has

been mentioned as House No. 53, Sector 8-A. Chandigarh

and while producing the death certificate of impersonator

Taranjot Kaur where the permanent address has been

mentioned as House No.205, Tehsil Khanna, District

Ludhiana. This clearly shows that heinous crime has been

committed by the Jagtar Singh in order to grab the property

of the applicant Taranjot Kaur. 19. That applicant is also

placing on record photocopy of attested copy of her affidavit

dated 03.06.2015 where it has been mentioned that the

applicant is also known by the name Slony Taranjot Kaur

daughter of Sh. Hardial Singh R/o House No. 2792, Phase-7,

Mohali. It has also been mentioned that Slony Taranjot Kaur

and Taranjot Kaur is one and the same person. The copy of

the affidavit dated 03.06.2015 attested before Executive

Magistrate, District SAS Nagar, Mohali is enclosed as

Annexure A-9. 20. That the applicant is placing on record her

copy of Aadhaar Card where it has been categorically

mentioned D/o Sh. Hardial Singh R/o House No. 2792,

Phase-7, Sector 61, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab and the date

of birth of the applicant has been shown as 26.09.1973. The

copy of Aadhaar Card of the applicant Taranjot Kaur is

enclosed as Annexure A-10. The copy of the PAN card of

applicant Taranjot Kaur is enclosed as Annexure A-11. The

copy of the driving license of applicant Taranjot Kaur is

enclosed as Annexure A-12. The copy of the Voter Identity

Card of applicant Taranjot Kaur is enclosed as Annexure

A-13. 21. That applicant is also placing on record copy of her

Passport dated 17.08.1987 where the name of the applicant

has been mentioned as Slony Taranjot Kaur and father name

has been mentioned as Hardial Singh and mother name has

CRM-M-26710-2026 -7-

been mentioned as G.K. Sekhon and address has been

mentioned as R/o House No. 53, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh and

in the column particulars of relative/friend to be intimated in

event of death or accident has been mentioned as G.K.

Sekhon, House No. 53, Sector 8, Chandigarh. The copy of the

passport dated 17.08.1987 of applicant Slony Taranjot Kaur

@Taranjot Kaur is enclosed as Annexure A-14. 22. That

applicant is also placing on record copy of Passport dated

24.08.1987 of her mother Smt. Gurdip Kaur Sekhon where the

husband's name of Smt. Gurdip Kaur Sekhon has been shown

as Sardar Hardial Singh and address has been shown as

House No. 53, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh. The copy of the

passport dated 24.08.1987 of late Smt. Gurdip Kaur Sekhon

mother of applicant Taranjot Kaur is enclosed as Annexure

A-15. 23. That applicant Taranjot Kaur has done her

graduation from Stanford University, USA. Now, the applicant

Taranjot Kaur is presently posted in the Government

Department as Deputy Manager, Director General School

Education, Punjab located at Phase-VIII, Mohali. The

certificate of Matriculation of Taranjot Kaur dated March

1988 is enclosed as Annexure A-16. The Bachelor Degree in

Arts and Communication of the applicant Taranjot Kaur is

enclosed as Annexure A-17. 24. That applicant is also placing

on record Passport dated 17.08.1987 of late Sh. Lajeshwar

Singh, brother of applicant Taranjot Kaur. In the said

passport, father name has been mentioned as Hardial Singh

and mother name has been mentioned as G.K. Sekhon and

Permanent Address has been mentioned as House No. 53,

Sector 8-A, Chandigarh. The copy of the passport dated

17.08.1987 of late Sh. Lajeshwar Singh brother of applicant

Taranjot Kaur is enclosed as Annexure A-18. 25. That

applicant is also placing on record Aadhaar Card of her

brother Lajeshwar Singh S/o Sh. Hardial Singh where the

address of late Lajeshwar Singh has been mentioned as

CRM-M-26710-2026 -8-

House No. 2792, Phase-7, Sector 61, SAS Nagar Mohali. The

copy of the Aadhaar Card, PAN card and Voter ID Card of

Lajeshwar Singh brother of applicant Taranjot Kaur are

enclosed as Annexure A-19 (Colly). The copy of the Aadhaar

Card of Navdeep Kaur (wife of late Lajeshwar Singh) and

Aadhaar Card of Eveleen Kaur Sekhon (daughter of late

Lajeshwar Singh) are enclosed as Annexure A-20 (Colly). 26.

The applicant is also placing on record photograph of her

father late Sh. Hardial Singh Sekhon, IPS in uniform.

Photograph of mother along with family photographs of

brother and sister and grandmother is enclosed as Annexure

A-21. 27. That applicant is also placing on record the death

certificate of her grandmother Smt. Varyam Kaur where the

husband name has been mentioned as Hardial Singh Guram

where date of death is showing as 08.12.1996. The copy of the

death certificate of late Smt. Varyam Kaur is enclosed as

Annexure A-22. Thus, it is not possible that Smt. Varyam Kaur

had signed agreement to sell dated 14.03.1999 and its receipt

dated 01.01.2000, receipt dated 08.12.2000 and payment

receipt dated 08.01.2001 Annexure A-1 (Colly) with the suit

filed by Jagtar Singh as Smt. Varyam Kaur has already

expired on 08.12.1996. This clearly shows that a fraud has

been committed by Jagtar Singh. That applicant is also

placing on record the death certificate of her grandfather

Hardial Singh S/o Sh. Narain Singh and the date of death is

shown as 11.09.1982 and address of her grandfather has been

shown as House No. 53, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh. The copy of

the death certificate of late grandfather of applicant Taranjot

Kaur namely Hardial Singh 5/o Sh. Narain Singh is enclosed

as Annexure A-23. 29. That applicant is also placing on

record death certificate of her father H.S. Sekhon S/o Sh.

Gopal Singh and date of death is shown as 08.06.1986. The

copy of the death certificate of father of applicant Taranjot

Kaur namely H.S. Sekhon S/o Sh. Gopal Singh is enclosed as

CRM-M-26710-2026 -9-

Annexure A-24. 30. That the applicant is also submitting the

photocopy of her passport issued on 22.01.1997 which

expired on 21.01.2017. The photocopy of the passport of

applicant Slony Taranjot Kaur dated 22.01.1997 is enclosed

as Annexure A-25. 31. That earlier applicant was residing

with her parents at House No. 53, Sector 5, Chandigarh ie.

House allotted by the Government of Punjab, Chandigarh

when her mother was posted as an IAS Officer. It is worth

mentioning here that Smt. Gurdip Kaur was residing in the

above said house for the last 17 years till her retirement. 32.

That applicant went to the USA in the year 1992 and then

again returned back in the year 1993 as her grandmother was

unwell and after her death in the year 1996 the applicant

again went to USA in the year 1998. The applicant returned

to India in the month of October 2001 from USA after the

terrorist attack of 9/11 in USA. 33. That it is worth

mentioning here that one lady alleged to be Taranjot Kaur

and alleged to be D/o Sh. Hardial Singh Sekhon has filed an

application in the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh in the year

2019 requesting to transfer the property in her name. 34. That

this clearly shows that applicant Taranjot Kaur is the real

daughter of late Smt. Gurdip Kaur and forgery has been

committed by Jagtar Singh and his associates by filing the

frivolous suit before this Hon'ble Court on the basis of forged

sale agreement. 35.That this clearly shows that a heinous

crime has been committed by the plaintiff by way of

impersonation by producing the death certificate of some

other Taranjot Kaur having address i.e. House No. 856,

Lalheri Road Hardev Nagar Khanna, Ludhiana and given the

statement in the Hon'ble Court that Taranjot Kaur had

already expired and having no other legal heir and also

produced forged agreement to sell alleged to be executed by

the mother of the applicant Smt. Gurdip Kaur and further

agreement alleged to be executed by applicant Taranjot Kaur.

CRM-M-26710-2026 -10-

It is further respectfully submitted here that the plaintiff has

also got filed application by some other impersonator

Taranjot Kaur in the year 2019 having address in Amritsar.

Thus, all these persons have committed fraud with the Court

as well as with the applicant by producing false and

fabricated documents in the Court also by way of fraud, by

impersonating some other person as Taranjot Kaur. Thus,

Jagtar Singh has hatched criminal conspiracy. Thus, from all

the facts, it is crystal clear that false agreement to sell and

receipts have been executed by Jagtar Singh just to grab the

property and also by producing some unknown person as

Taranjot Kaur. 36. That it is worth mentioning here that

Aadhaar Card of the lady alleged to be Taranjot Kaur has

been attached in the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh which

shows that her year of birth is 1945 which is not possible as

father of original Taranjot Kaur, DOB was 15.03.1937. It is

not possible that father of the applicant was 08 years old

when alleged Taranjot Kaur was born. 37. That Jagtar Singh

has not mentioned the mother's name of impersonator

Taranjot Kaur to prove her identity. It is worth mentioning

here that when the civil suit has been filed by Sh. Jagtar

Singh where they have shown that Taranjot Kaur has expired

and mentioned that she was not having any legal heirs so the

property should be decreed in their favour. This clearly shows

that Jagtar Singh and her impersonator lady alleged to be

Taranjot Kaur has played a fraud with the court also as well

as with the Government Office ie. Estate Officer, U.T.

Chandigarh to grab the property of the applicant and address

of both the persons have been mentioned as resident of

Amritsar. 38. That Sh. Jagtar Singh has very cleverly

manipulated the things and has wrongly mentioned in the

court that impersonator Taranjot Kaur has expired and

having no legal heirs so the above said property should be

transferred in his name on the basis of the forged documents.

CRM-M-26710-2026 -11-

39. That no document has been produced by impersonator

Taranjot Kaur as well as Jagtar Singh showing that alleged

Taranjot Kaur was the daughter of Gurdip Kaur and

granddaughter of Varyam Kaur. 40. That the applicant is also

placing on record the decision on LPA No. 646 of 1989, in

which Smt. Kartar Kaur widow of Sh. Gopal Singh, i.e. Dadi

ji and Sh. Iqbal Singh S/o Sh. Gopal Singh, i.e. Tayaji of the

applicant, filed case against mother of the applicant Smt.

Gurdip Kaur Sekhon, Rajashwar Singh (brother) and

applicant Taranjot Kaur (minor) through Smt. Varyam Kaur,

her grandmother (Respondents). Case pertained to the

intense dispute of the Will of Sh. Hardial Singh Sekhon (father

of the applicant), which was decided in favour of the

respondents Gurdip Kaur Sekhon and others. The copy of the

order dated 03.07.2009 passed in LPA No. 646 of 1989 in

case titled as Kartar Kaur and another Vs. Gurdeep Kaur

Sekhon & others is enclosed as Annexure A-26. 41. That

applicant Taranjot Kaur is having the apprehension that her

Tayaji's son namely Khushpal Singh @ Lali S/o Sh. Iqbal

Singh Sekhon R/o Wadala House, Azad Nagar, G.T. Road,

Amritsar is behind the fraud committed by Jagtar Singh and

other persons, as Sh. Khushpal Singh @ Lali earlier also has

been threatening the applicant and her family with dire

consequences for the past many years, with the objective of

forcing her to transfer in his name the ancestral properties

located at Amritsar, which were left behind by the applicant

Taranjot Kaur's father. So much so that the applicant and her

family did not visit their ancestral home and land located at

Amritsar for past many years out of fear and threat from

Khushpal Singh S/o Iqbal Singh Sekhon and his partners. It is

worth mentioning here that the applicant's family is being

harassed since the LPA No. 646 of 1989 titled as Kartar Kaur

and others Vs. Gurdip Kaur Sekhon was filed, and the

harassment increased when the case was decided on

CRM-M-26710-2026 -12-

03.07.2009 in favour of the applicant and against Smt. Kartar

Kaur and Iqbal Singh, Le. Dadi ji and Taya ji of the applicant

Taranjot Kaur. 42. That applicant Taranjot Kaur and her

family are also having threat to their lives as the applicant

was threatened by Khushpal Singh @ Lali and his two sons

and wife. Applicant has the apprehension that Jagtar Singh is

a front-man working at the behest of Khushpal Singh @ Lali.

It is also pointed out that if anything happens to the applicant

or her family, then all these persons and other persons

involved in the present fraud will be solely responsible for the

same. 43 That Jagtar Singh along with connivance of all

above persons has submitted fabricated documents before the

Court of Dr. Parikshit Sharma, Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Chandigarh, where the forged signatures of Smt. Gurdip

Kaur, Smt.Taranjot Kaur (applicant) and grandmother of

applicant Smt. Varyam Kaur, are placed on the alleged to be

executed agreement to sell and on the alleged receipts,

whereas the various documents produced by the applicant

Taranjot Kaur show that the actual signatures of Smt. Gurdip

Kaur and applicant Taranjot Kaur are entirely different.

Moreover, Smt. Varyam Kaur had already expired on

08.12.1996. This clearly shows that a fraud has been

committed by Jagtar Singh as he produced the forged

documents before the Court in order to grab the property of

the applicant and also filed false and fabricated documents

before the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh pertaining to the

above said property alleging that the above said property has

been purchased by Jagtar Singh. 44. That thumb impression

of Taranjot Kaur has been appended on the alleged

agreement to sell and whereas applicant Taranjot Kaur used

to sign the documents and her signature has been mentioned

in various documents produced before the Court of Dr.

Parikshit Sharma, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh.

This clearly shows that applicant Taranjot Kaur used to sign

CRM-M-26710-2026 -13-

with her signatures. Moreover, it is crystal clear that when the

alleged agreement to sell produced by Jagtar Singh in the

Court was signed dated 14.03.1999, the applicant Taranjot

Kaur was in USA for higher studies and living at Stanford

University, California. Moreover, when the alleged receipts

were signed as a witness by the applicant Taranjot Kaur on

01.01.2000 and 08.12.2000 and 08.01.2001, the applicant

Taranjot Kaur was not in India as she was pursuing her

graduation degree in Stanford University, USA. Moreover,

Smt. Varyam Kaur had already expired on 08.12.1996, so it is

not possible for Smt. Varyam Kaur to sign as a witness on

14.03.1999, 01.01.2000, 08.12.2000 and on 08.01.2001. 45.

That the DL of applicant Taranjot Kaur is also enclosed,

where her signatures can be seen. Applicant Taranjot Kaur

used to sign in full signatures and never imposed thumb

impression, and the signatures of her mother Gurdip Kaur

Sekhon were also forged in the alleged document as the

original signatures of Smt. Gurdip Kaur Sekhon are visible in

her passport. Moreover, there are thousands of documents

where mother of the applicant late Smt. Gurdip Kaur Sekhon

signed in her capacity as an IAS Officer in different

departments wherever she was posted. 46. That it is worth

mentioning here that the alleged agreement to sell is alleged

to be executed on 14.03.1999 and the present suit has been

filed on 21.11.2023 i.e. after a gap of 23 years. Moreover, it is

not possible that Rs. 1,35,00,000/- alleged to be paid to late

Smt. Gurdip Kaur (mother of the applicant Taranjot Kaur)

and to the applicant was given totally in cash and Jagtar

Singh has not produced any document to prove the

transactions. 47. Applicant also has the apprehension that

Khushpal Singh, Jagtar Singh and others have fraudulently

obtained the personal identity documents of applicant

Taranjot Kaur, i.e. Aadhaar card, PAN card, etc. from some

sources and are in the process of misusing the same to grab

CRM-M-26710-2026 -14-

her property. This is corroborated from the fact that applicant

Taranjot Kaur received OTPs on her Aadhaar registered

mobile number for updating her Aadhaar information,

without her having initiated any such activity. She received 2

such OTPs on 31.10.2024 and another 2 such OTPs on

17.12.2024. Copy of the 2 OTPs dated 31.10.2024 and 2

OTPs dated 17.12.2024 is attached as ANNEXURE A-27.

Fearing fraud, the applicant immediately informed the UIDAI

helpline by sending e-mails dated 31.10.2024 and 20.12.2024

to help@uidai.gov.in, and also took legal remedy. The e-mails

are attached as ANNEXURE A-28. However, these persons

need to be restrained from using the applicant's identification

documents with the intent to defraud her. 48. That Jagtar

Singh has hatched a criminal conspiracy with other persons

by producing forged documents pertaining to agreement to

sell and forged receipts and also impersonating some other

person as Taranjot Kaur for the purpose of cheating and used

the forged documents as genuine. There are direct allegations

of forgery and cheating made out against Jagtar Singh and

other persons involved in this matter and thus, committed a

heinous offence. There is ample evidence on record against

Jagtar Singh in this relevant connection. Keeping in view the

present facts and circumstances, an FIR may kindly be

registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B

along with other relevant Sections of IPC and BNS 2023

against above named persons immediately or any other

person involved with Jagtar Singh in committing the offence.

Dated:- 6/06/2025 Complainant (Signed: Taranjot Kaur)

(Taranjot Kaur) D/o late Sh. Hardial Singh Sekhon and legal

heir i.e. daughter of late Smt. Gurdip Kaur R/o House No.

2792, Phase-7, Sector 62, SAS Nagar Mohali. M: 93161-

32654.”

CRM-M-26710-2026 -15-

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR has

been registered at the instance of one Taranjot Kaur who is an Imposter

and there is a serious dispute regarding her identity, addresses and

documents. Taranjot Kaur has filed an application in a civil suit for

permanent injunction filed by the petitioner for impleading her as well as

Gurdip Kaur and Eveleen Kaur Sekhon as defendants which application

is   pending   adjudication.  There   is   a   gap   of   4   years  between   the

complainant taking her matriculation and her Sr. Secondary Certificate

examination. It is a civil dispute which has been given the colour of a

criminal offence which is impermissible in law. As the case is based on

documentary evidence which are in possession of the Investigating

Agency, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and

therefore, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

5. On  the  other   hand,   the   learned  counsel   for   respondent

No.1/U.T., Chandigarh contends that one Varyam Kaur was the owner of

the property in question bearing House No.53, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh,

the value of which is about Rs.100 crores. Varyam Kaur who died on

08.12.1996 had a daughter namely, Gurdip Kaur Sekhon who was an

IAS Officer married to Hardial Singh Sekhon who was serving in the

police. The property was inherited by Gurdip Kaur Sekhon. Gurdip Kaur

Sekhon passed on 22.11.2001 whereas Hardial Singh Sekhon passed

away on 08.06.1986. Their legal heirs are their daughter Taranjot Kaur

alias Slony Taranjot Kaur, the present complainant currently residing at

CRM-M-26710-2026 -16-

House No.2792, Phase-VII, Sector 61, SAS Nagar, Mohali and son

Lajeshwar Singh who passed away on 13.09.2023 leaving behind his

wife  Navdip Kaur and  daughter  Eveleen Kaur.  The learned Senior

counsel  contends that the suit filed by the petitioner for permanent

injunction is based on fabricated documents. The agreement to sell dated

29.09.1998   (Annexure   R-1)   purportedly   executed   by   Gurdip   Kaur

Sekhon in favour of the petitioner is dated 29.09.1998. It is witnessed by

Varyam Kaur, the mother of Gurdip Kaur who died much earlier on

18.12.1996. It is allegedly thumb marked by Taranjot Kaur who as per

her passport and travel documents  was  in the U.S.A. pursuing higher

studies. The petitioner produced receipts dated 14.03.1993, 01.01.2000,

08.12.2000 and 08.01.2001 all purportedly bearing the signatures/thumb

impressions of complainant/Taranjot Kaur and her grandmother Smt.

Varyam Kaur as witnesses but Taranjot Kaur was studying abroad on all

the given dates between 29.09.1998 to 08.01.2001. Apparently, the

signatures/thumb impressions of both the witnesses appearing upon the

aforesaid documents prima facie appear to be forged and fabricated. A

bare perusal and comparison of the signatures of Gurdip Kaur Sekhon as

appearing on her passport (Annexure R-6)  with the signatures on the

agreement to sell would show that her signatures have been fabricated.

The petitioner has prepared another forged agreement between himself

and the complainant dated 23.12.2019 in which the complainant has

allegedly acknowledged the agreement of the petitioner with her mother

dated 29.09.1998 stating that she had no objection regarding the transfer

CRM-M-26710-2026 -17-

of his property in his favour. This has been done so as to cover up the

factum of delay  of 20 years in filing a suit. The petitioner has also

produced a death certificate of the complainant before the Civil Court

showing her to have expired on 17.10.2024 and having no legal heirs.

This purported death certificate of Taranjot Kaur has been procured on

the basis of incorrect facts and by hoodwinking authorities and is being

used to create false evidence before the Court to grab the property in

question. Apparently, there are other persons who are in conspiracy with

the present petitioner. A perusal of the letter dated 15.07.2019 submitted

to the Estate Office by some women impersonating the complainant

calling herself Taranjot Kaur daughter of Hardial Singh Sekhon reflects

her date of birth as 01.01.1945.  The date of birth mentioned in the

passport of Gurdip Kaur Sekhon is 03.01.1938.  If this be so then

Imposter Taranjot Kaur was born only 7 years after the birth of her

mother Gurdip Kaur Sekhon which is biologically impossible. This fact

unequivocally  establishes  that  the   imposter  Taranjot  Kaur   who  has

masqueraded as the present complainant at the instance of the petitioner

is an imposter. The complainant has supplied multiple documents during

the investigation to conclusively establish that she is Taranjot Kaur alias

Slony Taranjot Kaur daughter of Gurdip Kaur Sekhon and Hardial Singh

Sekhon. Further, a judgment in CWP No.10269 of 1997 titled as Taranjot

Kaur Vs. Adviser to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh and others has

been submitted by the complainant. A perusal of the judgment reflects

that the petition was filed by the complainant to set aside the resumption

CRM-M-26710-2026 -18-

order   dated   14.12.1982,   03.10.1989   and   08.07.1992   pertaining   to

residential House No.215 Sector 16-A, Chandigarh and the particulars of

the   complainant   specifically   her   DoB,   name   of   father   and   mother

including date of the death of her father Hardial Singh Sekhon are in

consonance with the other documents submitted by the complainant. In

pursuance of the aforementioned judgment of this Court, possession of

the House No.215, Sector 16A, Chandigarh has been handed over to the

complainant Taranjot Kaur vide letter dated 28.04.2015 after verifying

her identity and perusal of all papers submitted by her before the Estate

Office, U.T., Chandigarh. He therefore contends that it stand established

beyond any doubt that the complainant along with her sister-in-law

Navdip Kaur and niece Eveleen Kaur are the heirs to the property

bearing House No.53 Sector 8A, Chandigarh and all the documents set

up  by  the   petitioner   in   furtherance   to   the   civil   suit   are   forgeries.

Therefore,  the   custodial   interrogation   of   the   petitioner   is   certainly

required to unearth the larger conspiracy and to establish the identity of

the Imposter Taranjot Kaur.  Thus, the present petition is liable to be

dismissed.  

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep

Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held that merely

because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a

ground to grant anticipatory bail.  The first and the foremost  thing the

Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima

CRM-M-26710-2026 -19-

facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is

reproduced hereinbelow:-

         “

It may be true, as  pointed out by learned counsel

appearing   for   Respondent   No.1,   that   charge-sheet   has

already been filed.  It will be unfair to  presume on our part

that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent

No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further

investigation.

Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where

Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation,

we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have

granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

We are dealing with a matter wherein the original

complainant (appellant  herein) has  come  before this Court

praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court

to the accused should be cancelled.  To put it in other words,

the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised

its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused

in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order

passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the

accused   should   be   quashed   and   set   aside.  In   many

anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common

argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation

is   required   and,   therefore,   anticipatory   bail   may   be

granted.  There appears to be a serious misconception of

law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out

by   the  prosecution,   then  that   alone   would   be   a   good

ground to grant anticipatory bail.  Custodial interrogation

can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along

with  other grounds while deciding an application seeking

anticipatory bail.  There may be many cases in which the

custodial     interrogation   of   the   accused   may   not   be

CRM-M-26710-2026 -20-

required, but that does not mean that the  prima facie  case

against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and

he   should   be   granted   anticipatory   bail.   The   first   and

foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail

application should consider is the prima facie  case put up

against the accused.  Thereafter, the nature of the offence

should   be   looked   into   along   with   the   severity   of   the

punishment.  Custodial interrogation  can be one of the

grounds to decline  custodial interrogation. However, even

if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by

itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.    

8. The various documents submitted by the complainant during

the investigation, some of which form part of the record to establish her

parentage, date of birth, and the fact that she is also known as Taranjot

Kaur alias Slony Taranjot Kaur are enumerated hereinbelow:-

Sr.

No.

Name of Document Date

1.

Affidavit of Saloni Taranjot Kaur, D/o Hardial Singh, DoB: 

26.09.1973, R/o H. No. 2792, Phase-VII, Mohali.

03.06.2015

2.

Aadhaar Card of Taranjot Kaur, D/o Hardial Singh, DoB: 

26.09.1973, R/o H. No. 2792, Phase-VII, Sector 61, Mohali 

(SAS Nagar), bearing Aadhaar No. 4701 8857 4171.

—

3.

PAN Card of Taranjot Kaur, D/o Hardial Singh, DoB: 

26.09.1973, Permanent Account Number (PAN): 

BJFPK1888M.

—

4.

Driving Licence bearing No. PB-6520160238952 of 

Taranjot Kaur, D/o Hardial Singh, DoB: 26.09.1973, R/o H. 

No. 2792, Phase-VII, Sector 61, Mohali (SAS Nagar); 

Blood Group: B+ve; Date of Issue: 01.04.2024; Valid up to 

25.09.2033.

01.04.2024

5.

Identity Card issued by the Department of Education, 

Government of Punjab in the name of Taranjot Kaur, D/o 

Hardial Singh, Deputy Manager, R/o H. No. 2792, Phase-

VII, Sector 61, Mohali (SAS Nagar); Mobile No. 

9316132654.

27.06.2019

6.

Voter Identity Card bearing No. DFZ1757426 of Taranjot 

Kaur, D/o Hardial Singh, R/o H. No. 2792, Phase-VII, 

Sector 61, Mohali (SAS Nagar).

15.01.2003

CRM-M-26710-2026 -21-

9. It is apparent that the agreement to sell dated 29.09.1998

(Annexure R-1) which is  the basis  of the civil suit for permanent

injunction is a forgery. It is stated to be signed by Gurdip Kaur Sekhon,

the owner and purported seller of the property. However, a bare perusal

of the signature of Gurdip Kaur Sekhon as visible on the agreement

(Annexure R-1)  with  her signature on the passport (Annexure R-6)

would make it apparent that the signatures have been fabricated. Further,

Varyam Kaur, the mother of Gurdip Kaur Sekhon is stated to have thumb

marked the agreement on 29.09.1998 though she is passed away on

08.12.1996. Thirdly, Taranjot Kaur is stated to have thumb marked the

agreement though she signs documents as she is highly educated. Her

signature existing on her passport clearly shows her to have signed as

Slony as Taranjot Kaur. All the purported receipts of payment allegedly

signed by the complainant and Varyam Kaur are fabricated because

Varyam Kaur had already passed away whereas the complainant was

abroad.

10. The contention of the petitioner that there is a gap of 04

years between the complainant clearing her matriculation examination in

March, 1988 and passing her Sr. Secondary Certificate Examination in

1992 thereby creating a dispute regarding her identity is baseless. In fact,

the complainant had dropped two years on account of the severe illness

of her grandmother Varyam Kaur who she was taking care off. In fact,

the complainant ultimately went to study in the USA where she was

educated   at   Standford   University.   At   the   instance   of   the   present

CRM-M-26710-2026 -22-

petitioner, certain complaints were made against the present complainant

because of which she was constrained to approach this Court seeking

protection from harassment. During the course of the inquiry conducted

by Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, the identity of the complainant has been

clearly   established   as   Taranjot   Kaur   who   is   currently   working   as

Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan as a Deputy Manager (HRMS ID 934).

Further,   way   back   in   the   year   2015   the   complainant  had   already

furnished an affidavit regarding her name being Taranjot Kaur alias

Slony Taranjot Kaur D/o Hardial and her date of birth 26.09.1973.

11. The relevant extract of the reply dated 30.06.2026 filed by

the respondent No.1-U.T., Chandigarh wherein the identity of Taranjot

Kaur/complainant   has   been   categorically   established  is   reproduced

hereinbelow:-

“5. That further it  is necessary to  submit here that  the

complainant has supplied sufficient material and documents

before the investigating agency, which conclusively establish

that she is alive and there is absolutely no dispute regarding

her   identity.   During   investigation,   the   documents   i.e.

Aadhaar, PAN, Driving License, Govt. ID card, Voter card

and an affidavit dated 19.05.2025 have been taken on record

from   the   complainant   to   clear   all   doubts   regarding  her

identity. Further it is necessary to mention here that during

an enquiry in a complaint No.555 of 2024, the Vigilance

Bureau Punjab had verified all above mentioned documents

pertaining to the ID of the complainant and even submitted

an affidavit in CRM-M-3687-2025 filed by the complainant

Taranjot Kaur and categorically submitted that no evidence

of   forgery   or   fraud   was   found   in   enquiry.   Copy   of   the

CRM-M-26710-2026 -23-

affidavit   dated   19.05.2025   and   copies   of  Aadhaar,   PAN,

Driving License, Govt. ID card, Voter card are annexed

herewith as Annexure R-7 and Annexure R-8.

6. That besides the above mentioned evidence, a copy of

judgment dated 05.09.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court in

CWP No.10269 of 1997, titled as Taranjot Kaur Vs. Advisor

to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh & others has also

been   submitted   by   the   complainant   to   the   investigation

agency. Perusal of the judgment reflects that the petition was

filed by the complainant to set aside the resumption order

dated 14.12.1982, order in appeal dated 03.10.1989 passed

by   the   Chief   Administrator   and   order   dated   08.07.1992

passed by Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh in

Revision   Petition   pertaining   to   the   residential   H.No.215,

Sector 16-A, Chandigarh and particulars of the complainant

specifically her DOB, name of father and mother, including

the date of death of complainant's father S.Hardial Singh

Sekhon are in consonance to the documents submitted by the

complainant mentioned in the preceding paras. It is also

necessary   to   mention   here   that   in   pursuance   to   the

abovementioned judgment of this Hon'ble Court, possession

of H.No.215, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh was handed over to

the complainant Taranjot Kaur vide letter No.10904, dated

28.04.2015 after verifying her identity proof and perusal of

all papers submitted by complainant Taranjot Kaur before

the   Estate   Officer,   U.T.   Chandigarh   also   reflect   that

particulars proving her identity are in consonance to the

above   mentioned   documents   i.e.   Aadhaar,   PAN,   Driving

License, Govt. ID card, Voter card (Annexure R-8). Copies of

judgment   dated   05.09.2014   and   possession   letter   dated

28.04.2015 and the documents submitted by the complainant

Taranjot   Kaur   before   the   Estate   Officer   while   taking

possession on 30.04.2015 are annexed herewith as Annexure

R-9 and Annexure R-10.

CRM-M-26710-2026 -24-

7. That keeping in view of the above mentioned submissions

qua the evidence to prove identity of the complainant, it is

apparently clear on the record that complainant Taranjot

Kaur is daughter of Hardial Singh Sekhon and the imposter

who was masquerading as Taranjot Kaur is a third person

set  up  by  the  petitioner  to   usurp  prime  property  of the

complainant through forged documents.

8. That petitioner has tried to mislead this Hon'ble Court that

depicting the picture that the dispute is of the Civil in nature

and   no   offence   is   made   out   against   him,   however,   the

material   collected   during   investigation   prima   facie

establishes commission of serious criminal offences involving

forgery, fabrication of evidence, impersonation and criminal

conspiracy. Further, it is submitted that investigation in the

present case is still underway and several important aspects

are  yet to be thoroughly investigated  after  arrest of the

accused, including recovery of all original documents, the

manner of procurement of the alleged death certificate of the

complainant, and investigation into the involvement of other

persons   and   impersonators   in   the   conspiracy   and

preparation   of   forged   documents.   Thus,   custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary for

proper investigation of the present case. Without custodial

interrogation,   it   would   be   extremely   difficult   for  the

investigating agency to  unearth  the  complete conspiracy,

identify   all   persons   involved   and   recover   the   original

documents/material used in commission of the offences.

9. That the allegations against the petitioner are grave and

serious   in   nature   and   clearly   indicate   that   a   larger

conspiracy has been hatched by the petitioner in connivance

with other persons only with an intention to illegally usurp

the   aforesaid   prime   property   worth   more   than   Rs.100

crores.”

CRM-M-26710-2026 -25-

12. As   the   offence   is  prima   facie  established   and   the

investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion of ascertaining other

conspirators in the preparation of forged documents etc. the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary.

13. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in

the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.

14. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for

the purposes of deciding this bail petition and the Trial Court is free to

adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it

uninfluenced by any such observations made herein. 

   (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)

 JUDGE

21.07.2026

JITESH 

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No

Whether reportable:-  Yes/No