As per case facts, an FIR was registered against a Tehsildar and Baldev Kaur for illegally selling land. Joginder Sharma, a revenue officer and cousin of one buyer, was later ...
CRM-M-10902-2026 -2-
This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M-10902-
2026 titled as Joginder Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and CRM-M-13239-
2026 titled as Baldev Kaur Vs. State of Haryana as both arise out of the same
FIR.
2. The prayer in the present petitions under Section 482 BNSS,
2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.03 dated
30.01.2026 registered under Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023, Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act along with Sections 238, 316(5), 318, 336(3)
and 340 of BNS, 2023 (subsequently added) at Police Station State Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption Bureau, District Panchkula.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from the
Reply dated 11.05.2026 by way of affidavit of Vijay Kumar Nehra, DSP, P.S.
State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Panchkula in CRM-M-10902-
2026.
4. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on the basis of
an Intelligence Report dated 29.01.2026 whereby it was revealed that Vikram
Singla posted as Tehsildar despite being aware about the restriction on sale
pertaining to the land in question in the present case imposed vide a Rapat
No.110 dated 25.10.2019 in connivance with Baldev Kaur and others got
registered sale deed No.1109 dated 16.10.2025 whereby Baldev Kaur sold her
land measuring 141 kanal 8 marlas 7 Sarsai comprised in Hadbast No.210
Village Shahpur, Tehsil Raipur Rani, Panchkula to Naveen S/o Devender S/o
Sh. Banwari Lal, Resident of Village Badala, District Bhiwani in lieu of Rs.1
CRM-M-10902-2026 -3-
crore. After obtaining sanction U/s 17-A Prevention of Corruption Act qua
Vikram Singla, the case FIR No.3 dated 30.01.2026 U/s 7 P.C. Act and
Section 140(2) BNS has registered at Police Station ACB, Panchkula initially
against Vikram Singla and Baldev Kaur (petitioner in CRM-M-13239-2026).
During the course of the investigation, Joginder Sharma, L.A.O. (petitioner in
CRM-M-10902-2026) came to be nominated as an accused.
5. The brief background of the case as emanating from the affidavit
dated 11.05.2026 of Vijay Kumar Nehra, DSP, P.S. State Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Panchkula is that Kulbir Singh and Lakhbir Singh sons of
Malkiat Singh, Surmukh Singh S/o Ranjodh Singh along with others and M/s
PGF Ltd. (Pearl Green Forest) purchased land measuring 700 kanals approx.
in Village Shahpur Tehsil Raipur Rani from different persons vide four sale
deeds i.e. sale deed Nos.133, 134 both dated 05.05.2004, sale deed No.419
dated 16.06.2004 and Sale deed No.452 dated 23.06.2004 (Annexures R-5 to
R-8).
In the case titled as M/s PGF Ltd. & others Vs. Union of India &
another, bearing Civil Appeal No.6572 of 2004, preferred by M/s PGF Ltd. &
others against the judgment dated 26.07.2004 passed by this Court in CWP
No.188 of 2003, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the said appeal
vide judgment dated 12.03.2013 directed the CBI and the Income Tax
Department to investigate into the malpractices of M/s PGF Ltd. and to
initiate appropriate civil and criminal proceedings against the said entity. In
compliance with the judgment dated 12.03.2013, a preliminary inquiry was
conducted by the CBI which revealed that M/s PGF Ltd. and M/s PACL Ltd.
CRM-M-10902-2026 -4-
(Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd.) had induced a large number of investors to
invest by falsely allotting lands in their names despite not owning such land.
Upon completion of the inquiry, it was recommended that a case be registered
against M/s PGF Ltd. through its Managing Director Nirmal Singh Bhangoo
(brother of Baldev Kaur), Directors Harchand Singh, Chander Bhushan
Dhillon and Prem Seth whole time Directors Gurmeet Singh and Subrata
Bhattacharya and Addl. Director Gurjant Singh Gill for offences under
Sections 120B and 420 IPC. Consequently, the CBI registered a case bearing
RC No.BDI/2014/F/ 2004 dated 19.02.2014, Police Station CBI/BS&FC,
New Delhi.
Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, a search was conducted
on 22.02.2014 in the office premises of M/s PGF Ltd. at Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi. During the course of the said search, various property related
documents were seized including the aforementioned sale deed Nos.133, 134,
419 and 452 which were taken into possession vide a different Malkhana
(MR) Nos.1005/14, 1009/14, 1196/14 and 990/14 respectively.
Vide order dated 01.04.2015 passed in M/s PGF Ltd. Vs. Union
of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court constituted a Committee comprising of
Justice K. Ramamoorthy and Justice R.V. Easwar for the purposes of realizing
investor funds through sale of immovable properties and liquidation of the
fixed deposits of M/s PGF Ltd. The Court directed the CBI to handover all
seized documents to the Committee. Later, Justice K. Ramamoorthy was
substituted by Vikramjit Sen (retired judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court).
Pertinently, the four sale deeds seized by the CBI on 22.02.2014 from the
CRM-M-10902-2026 -5-
office of M/s PGF Ltd. at New Delhi are a subject matter of case titled as M/s
PGF Ltd. & others Vs. Union of India.
Vide letter dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure R-12), the CBI
addressed a communication to the Addl. Chief Secretary and Financial
Commissioner, Revenue, Govt. of Haryana informing that during the course
of the investigation conducted by the CBI it had transpired that M/s PACL
had purchased land/property in its own name as well as in the name of it’s
associate companies/employees and other individuals by utilizing investors
deposits and that it had seized 613 property related documents pertaining to
various Districts in Haryana including 97 properties situated in Panchkula. In
order to safeguard the interest of investors, the Addl. Chief Secretary and
Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Govt. of Haryana was requested by the
CBI to issue appropriate directions to the concerned land revenue officers and
Sub-Registrars to ensure that no transfer or alienation of any such property is
permitted without any prior NoC from the Court of competent jurisdiction or
CBI. Pertinently, the list (Annexure R-12/A) annexed to the letter dated
09.06.2015 (Annexure R-12) relates to other property documents of District
Panchkula seized by the CBI vide order dated 22.07.2014 and does not
include the property in question.
Vide order dated 02.02.2016 passed in Subrata Bhattacharya Vs.
Securities and Exchange Board of India, in Civil Appeal No.13301/2015 and
connected matters (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.705, 1076 of 2014 titled PACL
Ltd. Vs. CBI), taking note of the large-scale irregularities and need to
safeguard investor interest, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Securities
CRM-M-10902-2026 -6-
and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to constitute a Committee under the
Chairmanship Justice RM Lodha. The Committee was entrusted with the
responsibility of disposing of the land of M/s PACL and to utilize the sale
proceeds so as to refund the investors. The CBI was also directed to handover
the documents which might be required by the SEBI. Vide order dated
25.07.2016 in the above-mentioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
connected matter titled as M/s PACL Ltd Vs. CBI restrained M/s PACL Ltd.
along with its Directors, Promoters, Agents, Employees and its group and
associate companies from selling transferring or otherwise alienating any
property in which M/s PACL Ltd. has an interest. In furtherance of the same,
vide letter dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure R-15) issued by the Justice (Retired)
R.M. Lodha Committee and addressed to the Financial Commissioner &
Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Haryana Civil
Secretariat, Sector 1, Chandigarh, it was conveyed that only the said
Committee was authorized to sell properties of M/s PACL Ltd. or any
properties in which M/s PACL Ltd. has any direct or indirect interest and a
request was made to refrain from effecting any registration, mutation, sale or
similar transaction in respect of such properties. The letter enclosed a list of
764 properties pertaining to different Districts of State of Haryana.
Pertinently, the list (Annexure R-15/A) annexed to the letter dated 30.08.2016
(Annexure R-15) pertains to other property documents of District Panchkula
seized by the CBI after 22.04.2014 and does not include the property in
question.
CRM-M-10902-2026 -7-
Meanwhile, the CBI vide another letter dated 14.05.2018
(Annexure R-16) requested the Addl. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana to
direct land revenue officers and Sub-Registrars to obtain prior NoC from the
Justice R.M. Lodha Committee before permitting any transfer or alienation of
the land belonging to M/s PACL Ltd., M/s PGF Ltd. and its associate
companies and industries. Along with letter, a list of 638 companies
associated with M/s PACL Ltd. was annexed but no list of properties was
enclosed. However, pertinently, M/s PGF Ltd. is mentioned in the list
(Annexure P-10 with application CRM-14955-2026 in CRM-M-10902-2026)
Vide letter dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure R-17), in continuation of
its earlier communication dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure R-12) and 14.05.2018
(Annexure R-16), the CBI informed the Addl. Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Haryana that 169 additional titled deeds relating to properties of M/s PACL
Ltd. and its associates companies had been seized during investigation. It was
requested that the land revenue officers and Sub-Registrars be directed to
obtain prior NOC from the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee before permitting
any alienation or transfer. Pertinently, the letter dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure
R-17) pertains to property documents seized by the CBI after 22.02.2014 and
therefore, the land in question in the present case is not reflected in the said
list (Annexure R-17/A) appended with the letter dated 31.05.2018.
On 07.08.2019 the SEBI issued a public notice (Annexure R-18)
to the effect that only the Vikramjit Sen Committee was authorized to sell the
properties of M/s PGF Ltd. or any property in which the PGF or its
associates/subsidiaries have a direct or indirect interest. The notice also stated
CRM-M-10902-2026 -8-
that the properties of M/s PGF Ltd. seized by CBI are listed on the SEBI
website. The list of properties (Annexure R-19) seized by the CBI which is
listed on SEBI’s website shows all the aforementioned sale deed Nos.133,
134 both dated 05.05.2004, Sale Deed No.419 dated 16.06.2014 and Sale
Deed No.452 dated 23.06.2014 listed at Sr. No.234, 238, 219 and 212.
Based on letter bearing No.1600-STR-1-2018/4897 dated
05.06.2018 (Annexure R-20), letter No.2091 RC No.BD1/ 2014/ E/0004/
CBI/BS & FC/New Delhi dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure R-16) of the CBI and
in compliance of the letter dated 1593/Reader dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure
R-21), Rapat No.110 was entered into the Rapat Roznamcha 2019-2020,
Tehsil Raipur Rani whereby, it was directed to make an entry by red ink in the
Jamabandi against the names of private/unknown persons so that the land
could not be disposed of. The copy of the Rapat No.110 is appended as
(Annexure R-22). In furtherance of Rapat No.110, the requisite entry with red
ink was made in the concerned column of Jamabandi of the year 2018-2019.
It must be reiterated here that along with the letter dated 14.05.2018
(Annexure R-16) there is a list of 638 companies including M/s PGF, part
owner of the land in question.
While posted as Sub-Registrar, Raipur Rani, Panchkula, the
petitioner/Joginder Sharma addressed a letter dated 10.12.2020 (Annexure
R-24) to the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee seeking clarification regarding
any objection to the execution of a sale deed presented by Surmukh Singh in
village Raipur Rani where M/s PACL Ltd. and DFCL Ltd. are also part owner.
In response to the said letter, an email dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure R-25) was
CRM-M-10902-2026 -9-
sent to the petitioner informing him that the property referred to in the said
letter had been seized by the CBI and he was apprised of a communication
dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure R-15) whereby directions had been issued to the
revenue authorities not to effect registration, mutation or sale of property
belonging to M/s PACL Ltd. The petitioner sent another letter dated
24.12.2020 (Annexure R-26) to the Committee stating that the land owned by
Surmukh Singh was not part of the properties attached in District Panchkula
and requested a clarification regarding any objection to the registration of the
sale deed presented by Surmukh Singh. Once again, the Committee vide a
letter dated 22.01.2021 (Annexure R-27) made a reference to the email dated
14.12.2020 and the letter dated 30.08.2016 whereby revenue authorities had
been directed not to effect registration, mutation, sale etc. of property
belonging to M/s PACL Ltd. It was informed that the Committee had
appointed Shri R.S. Virk, District Judge to hear objections/representations in
respect of PACL Ltd. properties and the petitioner was requested to advise
Surmukh Singh to submit his claims regarding the property to the office of
Shri, R.S. Virk, District Judge.
However, it transpired during investigation of the present case
that instead of approaching the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee or the office of
Shri, R.S. Virk, the petitioner/Joginder Sharma with a view to circumvent the
directions issued by the Committee adopted an alternative course, registered a
GPA dated 04.01.2021 whereby Surmukh Singh transferred all his rights in
the property in favour of Vikramjit Singh and Hardip Singh who further sold
the land vide two separate sale deeds dated 02.01.2026 in favour of one Kunal
CRM-M-10902-2026 -10-
Chillana. Interestingly, the sale deeds were registered by Vikram Singla co-
accused while posted as Sub-Registrar, Raipur Rani despite having clear
knowledge of the directions issued by the competent authorities restraining
registration, mutation sale or any form of alienation of the property. An FIR
No.07 dated 24.04.2026 under Section 7(1) of PC Act and Section 61(2) of
BNS, P.S. ACB Panchkula has been registered against Vikram Singla, Deepak
Kumar (Kanungo), Narender Kumar (Patwari), Surmukh Singh and others.
It has come to light during the course of investigation that a letter
dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure R-31) was issued by the Deputy Commissioner,
Panchkula to the Tehsildar Raipur Rani with regard to removal of stay entries
recorded in the revenue record and the Tehsildar was directed to furnish a
report within a period of two days as to whether any error had been
committed in recording stay entries or whether the stay pertains to the same
land or any other land and whether any portion of the land had been omitted
from the stay entry. In response to the said letter, the Tehsildar sought a report
from the Patwari. The Patwari after going through the record gave a report
dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure R-33) that if any person/company has any
objection with regard to the stay entries recorded in the revenue record in
terms of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee and the CBI the remedy is to
place objections before Shri R.S. Virk, District Judge. Pertinently, attached
with the letter is a office memo of M/s PACL bearing No.443/6.10.2010
(Annexure R-32) containing details of the present sale 04 sale deeds
(Annexures R-5 to R-8). The Tehsildar, Raipur Rani forwarded the report
dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure R-34) to the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula
CRM-M-10902-2026 -11-
endorsing the Patwari’s report dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure R-33). The said
position has been reiterated by the Tehsildar addressed to the Investigating
Officer vide letter dated 11.02.2026 (Annexure R34/A).
It has come to light during investigation that Baldev Kaur the
mother of Kulbir Singh and Lakhbir Singh and who inherited this land on
their demise submitted an application dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure R-35)
before the SDO, Panchkula seeking removal of the stay entry allegedly
wrongly recorded with respect to land situated in Raipur Rani and Shahpur.
The application was marked by the SDO to the Tehsildar, Raipur Rani
(Vikram Singla) for necessary action. Vikram Singla, Tehsildar marked the
same to Narender Patwari who thereafter recorded Rapat No.64 dated
26.09.2025 (Annexure R-36) in the revenue record. In the said Rapat, he
noted that he had examined letter No.1600STR-1-2018/4897 and Letter
No.2091RCBI-1/2014(F)0004 dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure R-16) issued by
the CBI and observed that the property of Baldev Kaur and her family was
not reflected in the list annexed with the aforesaid letters. On this basis, the
stay entry recorded in the revenue record pertaining to the land of Baldev
Kaur was removed.
Even prior to the sanctioning of the mutation on 27.10.2025,
Baldev Kaur executed a sale deed No.1109 dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure
R-38) for land measuring 141 Kanals, 8 marlas and 7 Sarsai comprised in
Hadbast No.210 situated in village Shahpur, Tehsil Raipur Rani, District
Panchkula in favour of Naveen S/o Devender (first cousin of the petitioner)
CRM-M-10902-2026 -12-
for an amount of Rs.1 crore. The details of the payments received by Baldev
Kaur are as under:-
Sr. No. Date Received from Amount
1. 05.09.2025 Devine Realtors as Token of
land
Rs.50,000/-
2. 08.09.2025 Devine Realtors as Token
Money
Rs.1,00,000/-
3. 01.10.2025 Devine Realtors Rs.3,00,000/-
4. 09.10.2025 Devine Realtors Rs.5,00,000/-
5. 15.10.2025 Devine Realtors Rs.10,00,000/-
6. 07.11.2025 Naveen Rs.20,00,000/-
7. 26.11.2025 Naveen Rs.20,00,000/-
8. 19.12.2025 Naveen Rs.20,00,000/-
9. Total Rs.79,50,000/-
Baldev Kaur transferred Rs.19,50,000/- on 10.11.2025 to the
account of M/s Devine Realtors and the bank statement therefore reflects that
against a total consideration of Rs.1 crore, Baldev Kaur has received a sum of
Rs.60 lakhs from Naveen towards sale consideration. Pertinently payments
have been made to Baldev Kaur by Naveen and M/s Devine Realtors even
prior to 26.09.2025 i.e. before she moved an application for removal of the
red entry.
On 06.11.2025 Naveen further sold the above land to four
persons namely, Vishaljit Kumar, Munish Kumar, Rajan Goyal and Sanjay
Kumar Singla vide four separate sale deeds all dated 06.11.2025 (Annexures
CRM-M-10902-2026 -13-
R-39 to R-42). The sale consideration in each sale deed was Rs.1,45,00,000/-
each totalling Rs.5,80,00,000/-. A perusal of the bank statement of M/s
Devine Realtors (proprietorship firm of Dinesh Sharma, real brother of of the
petitioner-Joginder Sharma) would reveal that the firm has received a total of
Rs.2,15,00,000/- from Sanjay Kumar Singla, Munish Kumar and Vishaljit
Kumar, the details of which are as under:-
Sr. No. Date Received in the A/c of Devine
Realtors from
Amount
1. 25.08.2025 Sanjay Kumar Singla Rs.35,00,000/-
2. 04.09.2025 Munish Kumar Rs.20,00,000/-
3. 04.09.2025 Munish Kumar Rs.20,00,000/-
4. 04.09.2025 Krishan Kumar (father of
Rajan Goyal)
Rs.40,00,000/-
5. 09.09.2025 Sanjay Kumar Singla Rs.10,00,000/-
6. 11.09.2025 Vishaljit Kumar Rs.10,00,000/-
7. 15.09.2025 (Krishan Kumar (father of
Rajan Goyal)
Rs.40,00,000/-
8. 10.10.2025 Krishan Kumar (father of
Rajan Goyal)
Rs.20,00,000/-
9. 10.10.2025 Sanjay Kumar Singla Rs.10,00,000/-
10. 10.10.2025 Vishaljit Kumar Rs.10,00,000/-
11. Total Rs.2,15,00,000/-
CRM-M-10902-2026 -14-
Naveen has received a total sum of Rs.3,75,00,000/- from Sanjay
Kumar Singla, Munish Kumar and Vishaljit Kumar. The details of the same
are as under:-
Sr. No. Date Received in the A/c of Naveen
from
Amount
1. 06.10.2025 Vishaljit Kumar Rs.25,00,000/-
2. 06.10.2025 Sanjay Kumar Rs.25,00,000/-
3. 03.11.2025 Rajan Goyal Rs.10,00,000/-
4. 06.11.2025 Sanjay Kumar Rs.45,00,000/-
5. 06.11.2025 Vishaljit Kumar Rs.45,00,000/-
6. 07.11.2025 Rajan Goyal Rs.30,00,000/-
7. 07.11.2025 Munish Kumar Rs.45,00,000/-
8. 07.11.2025 Vishaljit Kumar Rs.30,00,000/-
9. 12.11.2025 Munish Kumar Rs.45,00,000/-
10. 18.11.2025 Sanjay Kumar Rs.45,00,000/-
11. 18.11.2025 Sanjay Kumar Rs.30,00,000/-
12. Total Rs.3,75,00,000/-
It has been brought to the notice of this Court that a sum of Rs.35
lakhs has been returned to the subsequent purchasers by Naveen/Devine
Realtors. Pertinently, the payments have been made by the four purchasers to
CRM-M-10902-2026 -15-
Naveen Sharma and M/s Devine Realtors even prior to the sale deed dated
06.11.2025.
6. The learned Senior counsel for Joginder Sharma (petitioner in
CRM-M-10902-2026) contends that the initial case against Tehsildar Vikram
Singla and Baldev Kaur was only to the effect that Pearl Group land which
had been restrained from being sold had been sold after fraudulently
removing the red-ink mark in the revenue record. The land reverted to the
owner Baldev Kaur who sold the same to Naveen S/o Devender (first cousin
of the petitioner). Naveen further sold the land to four persons and the sale
consideration was received by Naveen and Devine Realtors (the
proprietorship firm of Dinesh Sharma, real brother of the petitioner-Joginder
Sharma). Thereafter, on the statement of the buyers and on the basis of the
evidence collected the petitioner came to be nominated as accused. He
contends that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and there is no
evidence of demand, acceptance or recovery of any illegal gratification. The
red-ink entry was removed as there was no evidence of there being any
restriction on the sale of the said land. Rapat No.110 dated 25.10.2019 is
based primarily on a letter dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure R-16) addressed by
the CBI to the ACS, Haryana which contains a list of 638 companies affiliated
to M/s PGF Ltd./M/s PACL Ltd. owning property but there is no property list
enclosed. The other two letters referred to in the Rapat are based on the letter
dated 14.05.2018 only. Once there was no bar to the sale of the said property,
Baldev Kaur was well within her right to get the entry removed and sell the
property. He contends that there is absolutely no nexus between the petitioner
CRM-M-10902-2026 -16-
and the alleged transaction who was posted as an L.A.O. at Pancchkula. The
entry was removed by Tehsildar Vikram Singla on an application being
moved by Baldev Kaur. Merely because the property was subsequently
purchased by a nephew and real brother of the petitioner and thereafter further
sold by them would not further the prosecution case against the petitioner as
no such assumption can be drawn that the petitioner had any role in either the
removal of the red-ink entry or the subsequent sale of the property. As regards
the statements of the four purchasers of the property, the same would have
limited evidentiary value as they ought to have been made accused and not
witnesses. The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and no
recovery of any incriminating article has been effected from him. The case is
otherwise based on documentary evidence. Therefore, as he is a respectable
citizen and a Govt. servant and is not likely to flee from justice and otherwise
is ready and willing to join investigation once again, he be granted the
concession of anticipatory bail.
7. The learned Senior counsel for Baldev Kaur (petitioner in CRM-
M-13239-2026) contends that she is an illiterate widow of the age of 76 years
who has lost not only her husband but both her sons from whom the land
devolved upon her. In fact, she has been nominated as an accused on account
of her being the real sister of late Nirmal Singh Bhangoo who was the
Managing Director of Pearl Group as well as the fact that the land which was
sold was owned by her. She being an illiterate lady has been misled by
property dealers as also the various officials of the Revenue Department. As
per the impugned order it was accused Vikram Singla who maintained a
CRM-M-10902-2026 -17-
nexus with property dealers who acquired attached properties at lower value
and realize undue gains thereby causing loss to the State. The petitioner being
an illiterate lady has been induced into executing the sale deed by the
aforesaid persons. In FIR No.15 dated 23.02.2021 U/s 420, 421, 188 and 120-
B of IPC, P.S. Budladha, Mansa, the petitioner has already been granted the
concession of anticipatory bail. As she is ready and willing to join
investigation, she be granted the similar concession in the present case as
well.
8. On the other hand, the learned State counsel along with the
counsel for the victims/investors in M/s PGF Ltd./M/s PACL Ltd. with
respect to petitioner/Joginder Sharma contend that he is a Revenue Officer
posted in the District for the last many years. He was well-aware that the land
owned by M/s PGF Ltd./M/s PACL Ltd. and associate companies and by
relatives/associates of the promoters could not have been sold without due
permission of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee/Justice Vikramjit Sen
Committee. While posted as a Tehsildar at Raipur Rani, Panchkula in the year
2020, the petitioner had attempted to get sold land of one Surmukh Singh
where M/s PACL Ltd. was a part owner. Interestingly, Surmukh Singh is also
part owner of the 700 kanals out of which 141 kanal has been sold now. Vide
communication (Annexures R-24 to R-27) he sought clarification for sale
from the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee and was denied permission and was
instead directed to approach Shri R.S. Virk (retired) District Judge seeking
permission to sell. However, instead of approaching Mr. R.S. Virk of the
Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, he got executed an GPA of Surmukh Singh in
CRM-M-10902-2026 -18-
favour of another person. Then Vikram Singla, the accused in the present case
executed sale deeds on the basis of the GPA in favour of two persons for
which FIR No.7 dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure R-30) U/s 7(1) of P.C. Act and
61(2) of BNS, 2023, P.S. State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, ACB,
Panckhula stands registered. Therefore, the petitioner was well-aware that the
land belonging to M/s PGF Ltd./M/s PACL Ltd. /relatives and associates of
the promoters could not have been sold.
As regards the present case, they contend that letter dated
14.05.2018 (Annexure R-16) the basis of the red-ink entry in Rapat No.110
whereby the CBI requested the Addl. Chief Secretary & Financial
Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana to take prior NoC from the Justice R.M.
Lodha Committee before permitting transfer of M/s PGF Ltd./M/s PACL Ltd.
land has enclosed with it a list of 638 companies associated with M/s PACL
Ltd. owning land. M/s PGF Ltd. is one such land owning company. Part of the
700 kanals attached out of which 141 kanal has been sold was owned by M/s
PGF Ltd. Despite this fact, the red-ink entry has been removed from the
revenue record. Further, the public notice issued by SEBI dated 07.08.2019
(Annexure R-18) to the effect that sale deeds are prohibited without an NoC
has a list of properties posted on the website (Annexure R-19) where the four
sale deeds (Annexures R-5 to R-8) recovered on 22.02.2014 from the office
premises of M/s PGF Ltd. at Paschim Vihar, New Delhi are duly mentioned.
Still further, the report of the Patwari dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure R-33) is
clear and unequivocal that, if any, party had any objection to red-ink/stay of
sale entry, they can approach the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. Attached
CRM-M-10902-2026 -19-
with the letter is an Office Memo No.443 dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure R-32)
containing details of sale deeds (Annexures R-5 to R-8). This report has been
approved by senior officers. They thus, contend that all these documents
which the revenue officials are aware of and are part of the record of the
Tehsil would show that the land in question could not have been sold after
removing the red-ink mark on the Jamabandi and the same was done with a
malicious intent to sell the property which could not have been sold.
They further contend that the involvement of the petitioner can
also be ascertained from another fact. After removal of the red-ink entry on
the application of Baldev Kaur, she executed a sale deed in favour of Naveen
S/o Devender, the cousin of the petitioner on 16.10.2025 for an amount of
Rs.1 crore. Interestingly, the application for removal of the red-ink entry is
dated 26.09.2025. However, payments were being made to Baldev Kaur by
Devine Realtors (a proprietorship firm owned by Dinesh Sharma, the real
brother of the petitioner-Joginder Sharma) from 05.09.2025 onwards as is
evident from the chart reproduced hereinabove. Interestingly, Devine Realtors
and Naveen paid a sum of Rs.79,50,000/- to Baldev Kaur and Baldev Kaur
has transferred Rs.19,50,000/- back to the account of Devine Realtors.
Therefore, as against a sale consideration of Rs.1 crore, Baldev Kaur has
received only Rs.60 crores. Naveen, the cousin of the petitioner thereafter
executed four sale deeds in favour of Vishaljit Kumar, Munish Kumar, Rajan
Goyal and Sanjay Kumar Singla for an amount of Rs.1.45 crores each.
Interestingly, once again, Rs.2.15 crores has been received by way of sale
proceeds by Devine Realtors whereas Rs.3.75 crores has been received by
CRM-M-10902-2026 -20-
Naveen. The financial trail and the timing of the payments clearly establishes
that the red-ink mark was got removed with prior concert between the
petitioner, Vikram Singla, Baldev Kaur and others with a view to facilitate the
sale of the property firstly to Naveen, the cousin of the petitioner and to
Dinesh Sharma, the real brother of the petitioner who thereafter sold the land
to other four persons.
They contend that three purchasers namely, Rajan Goyal,
Vishaljit Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Singla have also got recorded their
statements under Section 180 of BNSS, 2023 wherein they have clearly
enumerated the active role played by the petitioner in the entire transaction
and the money received by him. Further, Vishaljit Kumar and Rajan Goyal
have provided audio recordings conversation between them and petitioner-
Joginder Sharma which also goes to substantiate that the petitioner is the
prime conspirator in the removal of the red-ink entry and the subsequent sale
of the land.
As the offence are prima facie made out and the investigation is
to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner/Joginder Sharma is certainly required and therefore, he is not
entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
9. The learned State counsel along with the counsel for the
victims/investors in M/s PGF Ltd./M/s PACL Ltd. with respect to
petitioner/Baldev Kaur contend that she being an accused in FIR No.15 dated
23.02.2021 which also pertains to Pearl Group Land was aware that the land
belonging to the Pearl Group of which M/s PGF Ltd. and M/s PACL Ltd. are
CRM-M-10902-2026 -21-
part could not have been sold. During the investigation, the statement of
Kamaljit Kaur widow of Kulvir Singh, the deceased son of the petitioner from
whom the land devolved upon her was recorded wherein she stated that she
did not know as to when the petitioner had got registered the land in her name
though she (Kamaljit Kaur) would also have been a legal heir of any land
owned by her deceased husband Kulvir Singh. Harpreet Singh, the son-in-law
of the petitioner who is a witness to all proceedings i.e. mutation, sale deed
proceedings etc. is also an accused in the present case and is absconding. The
time-line within which the transactions have taken place are also telling. The
petitioner started receiving part sale consideration from M/s Devine Realtors
from 05.09.2025. The application to remove the stay entry was moved by the
petitioner only on 26.09.2025. The sale deed was executed by the petitioner in
favour of Naveen for an amount of Rs.1 crore on 16.10.2025. However, she
received only Rs.79.50 lakhs out of which she returned Rs.19.5 lakhs to M/s
Devine Realtors thereby receiving a total sale consideration of Rs.60 lakhs as
against Rs.1 crore. Soon thereafter on 06.11.2025 Naveen sold the land to
four persons for a total amount of Rs.5,80,00,000/- and the sale consideration
was received by M/s Devine Realtors and Naveen. Quite interestingly, the
four purchasers were making payments to M/s Devine Realtors from
25.08.2025 itself, even prior to the petitioner moving an application on
26.09.2025 seeking removal of the stay entry. They contend that all the
accused including the petitioners have conspired together to sell the land
which sale was prohibited at a throw away price. They thus, contend that the
petitioner does not deserve any sympathy being a second time offender
CRM-M-10902-2026 -22-
particularly when her custodial interrogation is required to facilitate the
investigation and to fill up the loopholes in the same.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
11. 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 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
9NR0D6TCNGH6G(0)NU.I0(51(0251RE6WT566(051T01BR61HJ0A6en 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,
CRM-M-10902-2026 -23-
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
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.
12. In Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. The State of Punjab, 2025(4)
SCC 493, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious
offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory
bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the
Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely
enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or
are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be
said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the
petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no
frivolity in the prosecution.
22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement
in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in
(2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court expressed thus:
CRM-M-10902-2026 -24-
"28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof,
the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to
the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of
the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be
kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature
has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of
"the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of
bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case
against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not
expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole
consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of
innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep
in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The
salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause
of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty
can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.
24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free
society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty.
Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require
denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a
different thing to say that once the investigation MT0Ne6R01GH0251RE6W
sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a
CSABM20T6Re1G(0W0122ST6H0N90MGHSBEMGE0MG02NRRSC(MNG.
25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's
famous pronouncement that all men have their price,
CRM-M-10902-2026 -25-
notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very
far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was
Burke who cautioned: "Among a people generally corrupt, liberty
cannot last long". In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented
that France fell because there was corruption without indignation.
Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a
word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres
of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of
allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or
wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other
selfish considerations.
26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the
magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far
removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged
in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic
unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that
effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity,
undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country
faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins
to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the
higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In Kewal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2025(2) Law Herald 1736
,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“
9. It is well settled law, and reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, 2025 INSC
320 that anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the
Corruption Act is to be granted only in the rarest of rare
circumstances. The court is required to be prima facie satisfied
either of false implication, political vendetta, or manifest frivolity
in the complaint.
CRM-M-10902-2026 -26-
10. In the present case, no such circumstances are made out. On
the contrary, the specific allegations supported by preliminary
material including the trap proceedings, indicate a prima facie
involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged
offence.
11. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the position of
trust held by the petitioner as a public servant, and the need for
thorough investigation through custodial interrogation, this Court
finds no ground to extend the extraordinary concession of the
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. In Jatin Salwan Versus Central Bureau of Investigation,
2026(1) RCR (Criminal) 702 wherein the allegations were that a lawyer
sought illegal gratification to influence judicial proceedings, regular bail was
declined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
15. In Harcharan Singh Bhullar Versus Union of India & others
etc., SLP (Crl.) Nos.20917-20918/2025 where the allegations were that a
Senior Police Officer was demanding and accepting illegal gratification
through an intermediary, regular bail was declined by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
16. Coming back to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the
documents on record would reveal that the letter dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure
R-16) addressed by CBI to the Addl. Chief Secretary and Financial
Commissioner, Revenue, Govt. of Haryana prohibiting sale of properties
belonging to M/s PGF Ltd. /M/s PACL Ltd. /associate companies without
prior permission from the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee has attached with it
CRM-M-10902-2026 -27-
a list of 638 companies associated with M/s PGF Ltd./M/s PACL. Ltd. M/s
PGF Ltd. is one such company in the said list of 638 companies. As has been
argued, the 700 kanal purchased vide sale deeds (Annexures R-5 to R-8) is
partly owned by M/s PGF Ltd. and therefore, could not have been sold
without prior permission of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee.
The Public Notice issued by SEBI dated 07.08.2019 (Annexure
R-18) also prohibits sale of the land without permission of the Committee.
The list of properties (Annexure R-19) posted on the website of SEBI include
the four sale deeds at Sr. Nos.212, 219, 234 & 238 of the list.
Vide letter dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure R-31) the Deputy
Commissioner, Panchkula had asked the Tehsildar, Raipur Rani whether stay
entries had been wrongly removed. The Patwari gave a report dated
03.02.2023 (Annexure R-33) to the Tehsildar that, if any company/individual
had any objection to the prohibition of sale of its property, it was free to
approach Shri R.S. Virk of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. Attached with
this letter is a office memo No.443 (Annexure R-32) dated 06.10.2010
containing the details of the original sale deeds (Annexures R-5 to R-8).
The aforementioned documents are part of the revenue record of
the Tehsil office. However, Baldev Kaur in conspiracy with Joginder Sharma,
LAO, Panchkula and Vikram Singla, the then Tehsildar and other revenue
officials got removed the red-ink entry prohibiting sale by deliberately not
referring to other relevant documents on record prohibiting sale and sold the
land without permission of the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee.
CRM-M-10902-2026 -28-
17. Another fact which would establish the allegations against
Joginder Sharma is that while posted as Tehsildar, Raipur Rani in the year
2020 on the application of one Surmukh Singh, part owner of the 700 kanals,
the petitioner had written to the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee asking it as to
whether Surmukh Singh could sell another parcel of his land where M/s
PACL Ltd. was a part owner. The Justice R.M. Lodha Committee responded
by saying that the land could not be sold without permission. The
communications are on record as Annexures R-24 to R-27 respectively.
Despite the said fact, Joginder Sharma got Surmukh Singh to execute a power
of attorney in favour of another person and thereafter based on the said power
of attorney, Vikram Singla the then Tehsildar executed two sale deeds. An FIR
No.07 dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure R-30) U/s 7(1) of P.C. Act and 61(2) of
BNS, 2023, P.S. State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, ACB, Panckhula
stands registered against Vikram Singla and others. This allegation too shows
that the Joginder Sharma and Vikram Singla were very well-aware of the fact
that the land owned by M/s PGF Ltd./M/s PACL Ltd./their affiliated
companies and associates could not have been sold without permission of the
Justice R.M. Lodha Committee.
18. The financial trail also establishes the role of Joginder Sharma.
Even prior to the execution of the sale deed, Baldev Kaur received sale
consideration from Naveen, the cousin of Joginder Sharma and Devine
Realtors, a proprietorship of Dinesh Sharma, the real brother of Joginder
Sharma. As per record, Baldev Kaur received a sum of Rs.79.5 lakhs as
against a total sale consideration of Rs.1 crore. Rs.19.5 lakhs was returned
CRM-M-10902-2026 -29-
back to M/s Devine Realtors. Effectively, Baldev Kaur sold the land for Rs.60
lakhs only. Some of their payments have been made even prior to Baldev
Kaur moving an application on 26.09.2025 seeking removal of the stay entry.
Thereafter, Naveen executed four sale deeds in favour of four persons namely,
Vishaljit Kumar, Munish Kumar, Rajan Goyal and Sanjay Kumar Singla for a
sum of Rs.1.45 crores. Once again, payments have been received from the
purchasers by Naveen and M/s Devine Realtors and some of those payments
are even prior to the execution of the respective sale deeds as is apparent from
the chart hereinabove.
19. The statements of Rajan Goyal, Vishaljit Singh and Sanjay
Kumar Singla (Annexures R-47 to 49), the subsequent purchasers of the land
from Naveen also establish the role played by Joginder Sharma in facilitating
the entire scam.
20. The State has filed a comprehensive affidavit dated 11.05.2026
of Vijay Kumar Nehra, DSP, P.S. State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Panchkula in CRM-M-10902-2026. The relevant extract of the same is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
5. Knowledge of Land Status and Deliberate Removal of Stay
:G(RJ5W0g51(0d1(h1RM;T0D6CNR(0H1(6H012U1bUb1b20ilGG6/SR60DW22n
and Tehsildar's Report dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure RW2<n09NR-6H
part of the official revenue record maintained in the Tehsil Office,
Raipur Rani and was duly available in the concerned revenue files.
Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the petitMNG6R01GH05MT02NW
accused, had full knowledge of the true status and history of the land
in question. Despite the availability of such official record clearly
reflecting the connection of the property with PACL Ltd. and the
proceedings relating thereto, said report was deliberately ignored
CRM-M-10902-2026 -30-
and concealed while removing the stay entry from the revenue
R62NRHU0g560H6BMA6R1(60GNGW2NGTMH6R1(MNG0N90TS250-1terial record,
which was readily available in the Tehsil Office itself, clearly
indicates a conscious and intentional act aimed at facilitating illegal
transfer and sale of the property in question.
6. That a Public Notice dated 07.08.2019 (Annexure DW.7n0h1T0HSBJ
issued by Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), and the
9MT(0N90dRNC6R(M6T0ilGG6/SR60DW.An0h1T0SCBN1H6H0NG0the official
website of SEBI categorically declaring that only the Committee
constituted pursuant to the orders of the competent Court/Authority
was authorized to sell or otherwise deal with the properties
mentioned therein. The said public notice was issued in the public
domain for the specific purpose of informing all concerned persons
and authorities about the restrictions operating upon such
CRNC6R(M6TU0aNGT6rS6G(BJI0(560C6(M(MNG6RI02NW0122STed, purchasers, as
well as the concerned revenue authorities, are deemed to have
complete knowledge of the prohibition and restrictions relating to
the sale and transfer of the property in question. In spite of such
explicit public notice and official declaration, the accused persons
deliberately ignored and circumvented the restrictions and
proceeded with the illegal transfer and sale of the property, thereby
demonstrating their conscious involvement and dishonest intention.
Role of petitioner and the evidence collected in this regard
7. That the petitioner is the principal conspirator, kingpin and
ultimate beneficiary of the entire illegal transaction. He not only
conceived the criminal conspiracy in connivance wit502NW122ST6H
Vikram Singla, but also remained actively involved at every stage of
its execution. The material collected during investigation clearly
establishes his conscious, deliberate and calculated role in the
commission of the offence. Despite being fully aware of the actual
legal status of the land, the petitioner, in collusion with Narender
Dabas (Patwari), Vikram Singla (Tehsildar) and otheR02NW122ST6HI
first managed to get the stay over the land removed through illegal
means. In furtherance of the conspiracy, huge amounts of illegal
CRM-M-10902-2026 -31-
gratification running into lakhs of rupees were paid to public
servants. Significantly, an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was transferred to
the account of the wife of Narender Dabas, Patwari. During
investigation, accused Vikram Singla also disclosed that he was paid
Rs. 25 lakhs for facilitating registration of the illegal sale deed.
Further instances of payment of illegal gratification are still under
verification. The petitioner also misused his official position as
DRO/LAO to influence prospective purchasers by falsely
representing that the land was free from all legal encumbrances.
Thereafter, the petitioner received an amount of Rs. 2.39 crores in
cash on different dates, namely Rs. 50 lakhs on 29.09.2025, Rs. 65
lakhs on 01.10.2025, Rs. 45 lakhs on 04.10.2025, Rs. 55 lakhs on
06.10.2025, Rs. 20.50 lakhs on 19.10.2025 and Rs. 4 lakhs on
26.10.2025, apart from Rs. 5.90 crores received through banking
channels from the purchasers. Out of the said amount, Rs. 2.15
crores was transferred to the account of M/s Devine Realtors, a firm
belonging to his brother Dinesh Sharma, whereas Rs. 3.75 crores
was credited to the bank account of the petitioner's cousin Naveen
on different dates mentioned hereinabove. The said amounts were
thereafter routed to various persons either directly by the petitioner
or at his instance through Naveen's account, clearly reflecting his
complete control over the illegal operation and the deliberate
layering of funds to conceal the proceeds of crime. Further, as per
the statement of Jatinder Sharma, the petitioner even utilized part of
the cash proceeds on two occasions for gambling activities. A true
copy of the statement of Jatinder Sharma is appended as Annexure
DW4<U
8. That during the course of investigation, the statements of Rajan
Goyal, Vishaljit Kumar and Sanjay Kumar have been duly recorded
under law. A careful and conjoint reading of these statements
unequivocally establishes that the petitioner was not a mere
bystander but an active participant in the entire transaction from its
very inception. The said witnesses have specifically attributed a
direct and substantive role to the petitioner in planning, facilitating
CRM-M-10902-2026 -32-
and executing the illegal acts in question. Their consistent and
corroborative testimonies clearly demonstrate the p6(M(MNG6R;T0H66CW
rooted involvement in the conspiracy, thereby prima facie
establishing his complicity in the commission of the offences alleged.
Similarly, statement of Jitender Sharma also clearly establish
petitioner's complicity in the commission of the offences alleged.
9. That the audio recordings of the telephonic conversations,
supplied by Vishaljit Kumar and Rajan Goyal, clearly reveal that the
petitioner was not a mere bystander but an active and conscious
participant in the entire transaction right from its inception. The
contents of the said conversations demonstrate that the petitioner
was fully aware of all material aspects of the transaction and was
actively coordinating, negotiating and influencing the course of
events at every stage. The recordings further establish his direct
involvement in the conspiracy and corroborate the prosecution case
that the transaction was being executed under his instructions,
guidance and control. The said audio conversations thus constitute
crucial incriminating material, clearly reflecting the petitioner's
central role in the commission of the offences in question.
10. That the investigation conducted thus far has further revealed
(51(0(560C6(M(MNG6RI0MG012(Me602NGGMe1G260hM(502NW1ccused Vikram
Singla, was also instrumental in facilitating the sale of other
similarly situated land in the Raipur Rani area to private persons by
adopting an almost identical modus operandi. The material
collected during investigation indicates that the petitioner and his
associates systematically targeted lands having legal
restrictions/disputes and, through abuse of official position,
manipulation of revenue records and collusion with public servants,
got such properties transferred in favour of private parties for
wrongful gain. The facts emerging during investigation clearly
establish that the present case is not an isolated or standalone
(R1GT12(MNGI0AS(09NR-T0C1R(0N9010B1RE6RI0h6BBWCB1GGed and organized
criminal conspiracy being executed in a repetitive and systematic
manner. The recurring pattern of illegal conduct, involvement of
CRM-M-10902-2026 -33-
multiple persons, abuse of official machinery and movement of huge
1-NSG(T0N90-NG6J0H6-NGT(R1(60(560H66CWRNN(6H0G1(SR6 and wider
ramifications of the offence. The gravity, magnitude and organized
nature of the crime clearly disentitle the petitioner from the
discretionary relief sought in the present petition, particularly when
custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the entire conspiracy,
identify other beneficiaries and trace the proceeds of crime.
11. That the petitioner actively participated in and attended multiple
meetings with the purchasers in relation to the impugned
transactions and remained in constant contact with them through
R6ESB1R 0 C5NG6 0 21BBT 0 1GH 0 1CCWA1T6H 0 2N--SGM21(MNGTI 0 2learly
evidencing his direct involvement and conscious participation in the
fraudulent conspiracy. The continuous interaction and coordination
by the petitioner at every stage of the transaction unmistakably
establish that he was not a passive observer but a key facilitator and
controlling figure in the entire scheme. The said fact stands duly
corroborated from the analysis of the relevant Call Detail Records
pertaining to Mobile Nos. 9878933333 and 9814103333 belonging
to the petitioner, which reveal frequent and consistent
communication with the concerned parties connected with the illegal
transaction.
12. The petitioner was joined in the investigation of present case on
14.02.2026 and he was asked questions relevant to the case.
However, he didn't cooperate and gave false and/or evasive replies.
He was again joined in investigation on 16.02.2026. However, he
2NG(MGS6H05MT0GNGW2NNC6R1(MNGU0g560MTTS60R6B1(6H0(N0GNGW2NNC6R1(MNG
is substantiated on the basis of following points: W
I. Investigation has revealed that petitioner/accused remained in
2NGT(1G(0(NS250hM(502NW122ST6H01T0h6BB01T0CSR251T6Rs of the
property in question etc. through physical meetings, mobile
phone calls and whatsapp calls etc. as mentioned above,
however he deliberately refused to get his both mobile phones
recovered. Instead, he has taken a false plea that he has lost his
mobile phones while travelling to Salasar Rajasthan. It is
CRM-M-10902-2026 -34-
notable that he neither lodged any report/complaint to local
jurisdictional police station/other police station nor reported the
same on any online portal. The conduct of the petitioner/accused
clearly reflects a deliberate and calculated attempt to destroy
and withhold crucial electronic evidence in investigation.
II. Instead of producing the relevant two mobile phones being
used by him during the period of commission of offence,
Petitioner/accused produced two other mobile phones (one
earlier being used by his wife/children and one purchased in this
week as stated by petitioner). Despite these phones not being
actual phones required for investigation purpose, these phones
were taken into police possession and sent to Cyber Forensic
Lab to retrieve relevant data, if available, however CFL report
clearly reveals that there is no data available in these phones
thus, actual mobile phone which are still in possession of
petitioner were not deliberately produced.
III. The claim of petitioner that he lost his mobile phone after
registration of FIR is totally false and misleading on following
ERNSGHT0(51(0W
(i). On 14.02.2026, the petitioner stated that he lost his both
mobile phones while travelling to Salasar on 30.01.2026 (date of
visiting Salasar as stated on 16.02.2026) whereas on
17.02.2026, he stated that he lost his mobile phone while he was
going to Khatu Shyam Ji temple after parking his car. The
distance between Salasar to Khatu Shyam ji is around 115 KMs.
He even didn't know how much money also he had lost.
(ii) He neither reported the loss of mobile phones to report to
T6ReM26 0 CRNeMH6RT 0 9NR 0 H6W12(Me1(MNG 0 N9 0 : E 0 21RHT 0 (N prevent
possible misuse nor to local Police/online portal meant for this
purpose. Further, he stated that he didn't make any effort to
trace the lost mobile phones.
(iii) The IMEI numbers of the mobile phones presented by
petitioner on 18.02.2026 to the Investigating Agency and the
mobile phones being used by petitioner at the time of
CRM-M-10902-2026 -35-
commission of offence are altogether different. It clearly reveals
that petitioner/accused has concocted a false story so that
Investigating agency can't get his phone examined from Cyber
Forensic Lab. Mobile phones used during commission of offence
by petitioner/accused are very much relevant and vital piece to
evidence in the matter.
(iv) The Analysis of CDR shows that though one mobile number
9878933333 was lastly active till 07:28 PM on 31.01.2026 as
per CDR, however, due to forwarded calls, tower location were
not given by service provider. On this day, his location was
already in Salasar since morning time. Thus, petitioner's claim
that he lost mobile phone while he was going to Salasar is totally
false. It is further pertinent to mention here that he forwarded
the calls to an inactive number on 31.01.2026.
(v) The last tower location of another number 9814103333 is in
Jhajjar District on 30.01.2026 on 07:45. Tower location analysis
shows that he deliberately switched off his both mobile phone
and didn't lose the same in Khatu Shyamji as stated by him on
17.02.2026. As per IPDR, the last location of mobile number
9878933333 was Ramgarh Bypass Road Fatehpur Sikar on
31.01.2026 at 02:35 PM whereas last location of 9814103333
was Ramgarh Bypass Road Fatehpur Sikar at 02:37 PM on
31.01.2026. Distance between Fatehpur to Khatu Shyamji is
around 90 KMs. Thus, this is just an attempt by petitioner to not
to present mobile phones to Investigating Agency.
(vi) According to petitioner, he was carrying one phone in pocket
of his trouser and another phone was pocket of Jacket and he
lost his both mobile phones. Thus, this claim is totally
unbelievable.”
21. Baldev Kaur was the real sister of late Nirmal Singh Bhangoo the
owner/promoter/Director of the Pearl Group of companies of which M/s PGF
Ltd. and M/s PACL Ltd. are a part. She was well-aware of the fact that the
land could not have been sold as she is an accused in an earlier FIR No.15
CRM-M-10902-2026 -36-
dated 23.02.2021 U/s 420, 421, 188 and 120-B of IPC, P.S. Budladha, Mansa
concerning land belonging to the Pearl Group. The speed with which the
transactions have been entered into between Baldev Kaur and Naveen on the
one hand and Naveen and the subsequent purchasers on the other when seen
in the context of the timelines of payments being made to Baldev Kaur and
Naveen/Devine Realtors would establish that Baldev Kaur, her son-in-law
Harpreet Singh who is a witness in all proceedings were well-aware of the
fact that they were indulging in an illegal act in conspiracy with Joginder
Sharma and others by selling the land in question. By no stretch of
imagination can it be said that Baldev Kaur was unaware of her actions or that
she was unaware of the fact that the land which had devolved upon her from
her sons was free from encumbrances. As the offence stands prima facie
established and the investigation is to be taken to it’s logical conclusion the
custodial interrogation of the petitioners is certainly required.
22. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in the
present petitions. Therefore, the same stand dismissed.
23. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for the
purposes of deciding these bail petitions 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
26.05.2026
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....