CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

     CRM-M-64813-2024

Reeta Rani …...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab …...Respondents

   CRM-M-64814-2024

Parwinder Singh and another …...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab …...Respondents

CRM-M-20597-2025

Kamaljit Singh …...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab …...Respondents

CRM-M-36542-2025

Jaswinder Kaur …...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab …...Respondents

CRM-M-55567-2025

Kirpal Singh @ Garpal Singh …...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab …...Respondents

1. Date when Order was reserved 17.11.2025

2. Pronouncement of Order 04.12.2025

3. Date of uploading Order 04.12.2025

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 2

4. Whether operative part or full Order is

pronounced

Full

5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of full 

order, and reasons thereof

Not Applicable

CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present: Mr. B.S. Khehar, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

(CRM-M-64813-2024 and CRM-M-64814-2024)

Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate and 

Mr. Karanpreet Singh, Advocate 

Mr. Som Nath, Advocate 

for the petitioner(s)

(in CRM-M-20597-2025).

Mr. Sahilpreet Singh, Advocate for 

Mr. Kirpal Singh, Advocate 

for the petitioner(in CRM-M-55567-2025)

Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, Advocate 

For the petitioner (in CRM-M-36542-2025)

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the complainant

(in CRM-M-64813-2024).

  ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.  By way of this common order, all the above-mentioned

petitions are being decided together as they arise out of the same FIR and

common allegations.

DETAILS OF PETITIONS

Sr. No. Petition No. Petitioner(s) Nature of Petition

1 CRM-M-64813-2024 Reeta Rani Anticipatory Bail

2 CRM-M-64814-2024 Parwinder Singh & Jyoti Anticipator y Bail

(Joint)

3 CRM-M-20597-2025 Kamaljit Singh Anticipatory Bail

4 CRM-M-36542-2025 Jaswinder Kaur Regular Bail

5 CRM-M-55567-2025 Kirpal Singh @ Garpal

Singh

Regular Bail

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 3

All the aforesaid petitions arise from  FIR No. 179 dated

03.12.2024, registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur,

under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC (corresponding

to Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338(3), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2)

BNS).

2. FIR was registered at the instance of Chander Shekhar

Mehta son of Sh. Kishan Chand Mehta, who alleged that:-

“ My Taya ji (elder uncle), father and Chacha (younger uncle)

died long ago. Our ancestral land has been sold on 08.07.2024,

and the mutation of which has been got registered by Jaswinder

Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh son Gurmel Singh in her own name

fraudulently, by creating false documents, fake Aadhaar cards

and by presenting forged persons and she has also availed a loan

of Rupees 12 lakh from the Punjab National Bank, Sumundra,

and also by preparing the forged sale deeds of other ancestral

land, the mutations have been got registered. Hence, this entire

matter the subject of investigation and the details of the evidence

in this regard are as follows. 1. Shri Brahm Saran Mehta is the

elder brother of my father, and by preparing his fake Aadhaar

card, the fake Aadhaar number 5418 0079 9993

has been used, while he died on 19.01.2006 in Delhi, who was

Class one gazetted officer of the Ministry of Defence.

2. Shri Shiv Saran Mehta the elder brother of my father, after

preparing his fake Aadhar card, forged Aadhar No. 5528 4631

6477 has been used, while he died in Delhi on 29.05.1996, who

was Civil Surgeon doctor.

3. Shri Krishan Chand Mehta, my father, after preparing his

fake Aadhar Card, the forged Adhaar No. 8429 6200 5247 has

been used, he died on 13.09.2008 at Garhshankar, and he was

top class Turbine mechanic.

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 4

4. Shri Parhlad Narain Mehta, the younger brother of my

father, after preparing his fake Aadhar Card, the forged Adhaar

No. 6502 8142 3301 has been used, whereas, he died in Delhi on

15.11.2020, who was Income Tax Officer.

5. Shri Satgur Nath Mehta was the son of the brother of my

grandfather,after preparing his forged Aadhar Card, the fake

Adhaar Card No. 6502 8142 3301 has been used, while he died

at Nawanshahr on 30

th

March 1990. His death certificate is also

available. By presenting fake persons in place of these original

persons the sale deed was got prepared by taking their thumb

impressions, whereas all these persons were educated persons

and now they do not exist in this world.

On 08.07.2024, the sale deed of 12 kanals 18 Marlas land was

registered in favour of Jaswinder Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh

(Mobile No. 98789;37761 Aadhar No.5430 7785 4242) resident

of Chak Hajipur, Tehsil Garhshankar vide Deed No. 2024;

25/166/1/821 Day Monday time 03:23:55 PM by the Tehsildar

Lakhwinder Singh, Registry Clerk;Gurminder Singh, which was

prepared the Deed Writer Sajan Kumar Advocate Garhshankar

vide Registered No.324 on 01.07.2024 and Surjit Singh who is

Numberdar of Garhshankar and by making the forged person as

first witness in an illegal manner attested the same, and Kuldeep

Singh son of Baljit Singh resident of village Lohta, Tehsil

Balachaur (Aadhar No.6550 4470 2499), on becoming the

second witness testified the same, It is requested that a lot of

owners of Mehta dynasty of village PanamHadbast No.149 who

have already died, but by presenting fake persons, Kirpal Singh

son of Gurmail Singh, resident of village Chak Hajipur Tehsil

Garhshankar has got other registries in the name

of his wife of Jaswinder Kaur and one registry has been done in

the name of Reeta Rani wife of Devinderpal son of Mool Raj

resident of Roopnagar, which is the subject of serious

investigation. Deed No.2024;25/166/1/723, Dated 27.06.24 in

favour of Jaswinder Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh regarding land

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 5

situated in village Panam (which was got registered in the name

of his wife by presenting himself as her fake General Power of

Attorney), Deed No. 2024;25/166/1/733, Dated 01.07.2024 in

favour of Jaswinder Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh regarding land

situated in village Panam. Deed No.2024;25/166/1/856 Dated

15.07.2024 in favour of Reeta, Rani wife of Davinder

Pal son of Mool Raj residents of Roopnagar. The consent

regarding cultivation of our land has been given since long to

our respectable Joginder Singh Kang son of Diwan Singh village

Chak Hajipur, who is cultivator as shareholder in it. Hence, I

request that our elders are no more in this world, had they been

alive then their age would have been more than 100 years. It is

not possible for them to come and execute any such kind of

registries. Shri Ram Rakha son of Shri Sukhdayal fake Aadhar

No.3825 1823 9498 was the brother of my grandfather Shri

Tarlok Chand Mehta, who has died long ago, who was 70 years

old at that time. This whole matter is subject of impartial and

serious investigation. With this a big scam would be unfolded.

The persons of preparing forged Aadhar cards and their

supporters have already entered for tarnishing in the internal

security of India. It is very important to look at this serious

matter and find out the accused. You are requested to take

immediate appropriate legal action against the persons involved

in preparing the fake documents, using the forged documents,

attesting the fake documents, writers of fake sale deeds, sellers,

purchasers and persons playing fraud with the banks on the basis

of forged documents, and all persons supporting them directly or

directedly. Applicant, Chander Shekhar, Chander Shekhar Mehta

son of Shri Kishan Chand Mehta, Deep Colony, Garhshankar

Mobile No. 79868;80380 dated 13.09.2024”

3. From reading of the FIR, it transpires that elders of the

complainant, namely his father, taya and chacha, had expired long ago,

and the ancestral land existing in their names was fraudulently got

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 6

registered and thereafter mutated in the name of Jaswinder Kaur w/o

Kirpal Singh by playing fraud and creating false documents, including

Aadhaar cards and other papers, by impersonating the actual owners. It is

further alleged that she also succeeded in availing a loan of ₹12 lakhs

from Punjab National Bank on the basis of these forged documents.

4. It is further explained that several close relatives of the

complainant have passed away. Complainant’s Taya Ji, Shri Brahm Saran

Mehta, who was serving as a Gazetted Officer in the Defence Ministry,

expired on 19.01.2006 in Delhi. Another Taya, Shri Shiv Saran Mehta,

who was a Civil Surgeon, expired on 29.05.1996. Complainant’s father,

Shri Krishan Chand Mehta, a  Turbine Mechanic, expired on 13.09.2008.

Shri Parhlad Narayan Mehta, the complainant’s Chacha and an Income

Tax  Officer,  expired   on   15.11.2020.  Additionally,   Shri  Satgur  Nath

Mehta,   son   of   the   brother   of   the   complainant’s  grandfather,     died

30.03.1990.

5. Therefore, in the FIR it is alleged that all the disputed sale

deeds dated 08.07.2024 pertaining to land measuring 12 Kanal 18 Marla

in favour of accused-Jaswinder Kaur w/o Kirpal Singh were registered in

connivance with other accused, namely Tehsildar Lakhwinder Singh,

Registry Clerk Gurwinder Singh, Deed Writer Sajan Kumar (Advocate),

and Surjit Singh Numberdar of Village Garhshankar, who all acted as if

they are original holders to the posts, appeared as the first witness  in the

illegal   sale.   Similarly,   accused   Kuldeep   Singh   became   the   second

attesting witness.

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 7

6. It   is   further   alleged   that   accused-Kirpal   Singh   got   the

registries executed in the name of his wife Jaswinder Kaur and in the

name of accused Reeta Rani in respect of land situated in Village Panam,

wherein   Kirpal   Singh   presented   himself   as   a   fake   GPA-holder   for

executing sale deeds dated 27.06.2024, 01.07.2024, and 15.07.2024. FIR

also clarifies that other ancestors, such as Shri Ram Rakha (brother of the

complainant’s grandfather), had died around 70 years ago, and that, had

the ancestors been alive today, they would have been more than 100 years

of age. Thus, an impartial and serious investigation was requested by the

complainant in the FIR.

7. In   CRM-M-64813-2024   (Reeta   Rani’s   case),  it   was

explained that the case was registered against:

(i) Kirpal Singh, (ii) Jaswinder Kaur, (iii) Reeta Rani, (iv) Surjit Singh,

(v)   Gurdeep   Singh,   (vi)   Jyoti   Verma,   (vii)   Kuldeep  Singh,   (viii)

Parwinder, and (ix) Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

8. In the status report dated 26.10.2025 in  CRM-M-64813-

2024 (Reeta Rani’s case), role of each accused was described as under:

i)Kirpal Singh got executed a General Power of Attorney dated

21.06.2024 in his own favour by impersonating the owners Janaki Lal,

Bihari Lal and Batali Ram, sons of Prabhdyal, whereas they had already

expired long ago. Kirpal Singh thereafter executed a sale deed of land

measuring 7 Kanal 6 Marla in the name of his wife Jaswinder Kaur on

27.06.2024.

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 8

As per the disclosure statement of accused Kirpal Singh, for the purpose

of executing the forged GPA dated 21.06.2024 and the sale deed dated

27.06.2024, his co-accused Jyoti Verma, Sandeep Kumar, and one peon

namely Kamaljit Singh, in the Revenue Department, prepared fabricated

Aadhaar cards and arranged fake persons required for impersonation of

the actual owners.

During investigation, it also transpired that accused Kirpal Singh

had projected himself in the GPA dated 24.06.2024 as “Gurpal Singh” on

his Aadhaar card, thereby attempting to mislead the investigating agency

by using two different names (Kirpal Singh and Gurpal Singh).

ii)With respect to accused-Jaswinder Kaur, the status report states

that she was arrested on 02.04.2025. She got executed a sale deed dated

01.07.2024 of land measuring 4 Kanal 2 Marla by impersonating the real

owners, namely Dilbagh, Satgur Nath, and Hari Krishan, sons of Matta

Dutt r/o Village Panam, who had already died.

Another sale deed dated 08.07.2024 of land measuring 12 Kanal 18

Marla was also executed by Jaswinder Kaur by impersonating the already

deceased real owners, namely Ram Rakha, Ram Lal, Gurbax Rai, Beant

Rai, Shiv Charan, Kishan Chand and Parhlad Narayan r/o Village Panam.

Accused-Reeta Rani (mother of co-accused Jyoti Verma) also executed a

sale deed dated 15.07.2024 of land measuring 11 Karnal 14 Marla by

impersonating the real owners who had already died, namely Malavi

Devi, Devki Rani, Davinder Pal, Mohan Kumari, Sudharshan Kumari,

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 9

Bihari Lal, Batli Ram, Janaki Lal, Dina Nath, Vidyasagar, and Satgur

Nath r/o Village Panam.

iii) During investigation, co-accused Surjit Singh (Lambardar)

and Gurdip Singh were found to have witnessed the GPA executed in

favour   of   Kirpal   Singh.   Surjit   Singh   (Lambardar),   Kuldeep   Singh,

Parwinder Singh and Advocate Rajesh Kumar are the witnesses to the

sale deeds executed by accused Reeta Rani and Jaswinder Kaur.

iv) When   the   anticipatory   bail  petition   of   Reeta   Rani   was

pending before this Court, it was noticed that the investigating officer had

not even arrested the main accused Kirpal Singh and Jaswinder Kaur.

Accordingly,   both   of   them   were   arrested   on   02.04.2025   at   the

intervention of this Court

9. From the above explanation, it becomes clear that the prime

role, if any, in the commission of the offences in question was initiated at

the instance of accused  namely, Kirpal Singh, his wife Jaswinder Kaur,

and Reeta Rani, who ultimately derived rights in the land due to the

execution of the questioned sale deeds.

10. During the pendency of the anticipatory bail petitions—i.e.,

that of Reeta Rani (CRM-M-64813-2024) and that of Parwinder Singh

and Jyoti (CRM-M-64814-2024)—by recording the contentions of these

three   petitioners,   interim   anticipatory   bail   was   granted   to   accused

Parwinder Singh and Jyoti vide order dated 20.12.2024, which reads as

under:

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 10

“ The petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail in respect of

a case registered vide FIR No.179, dated 3.12.2024 at Police

Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, under Sections 319(2),

318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) (under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468,

471, 120;B of Indian Penal Code).

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of

Chander Shekhar Mehta, wherein it is alleged that his father, his

‘Taya Ji’ (elder uncle) and ‘chacha’ (younger uncle) had died

long ago. It is alleged that their ancestral land has been sold to

various persons on the basis of forged documents including

Power of Attorney/ forged Aadhar Card etc. and mutation had

also been got sanctioned in favour of Jaswinder Kaur wife of

Kripal Singh. It is alleged that while Shri Brahm Saran Mehta

(complainant’s uncle) had expired on 19.1.2006 in Delhi;

another of complainant’s uncle namely Shri Shiv Saran Mehta

had expired on 29.5.1996; complainant’s father Shri Krishan

Chand Mehta had expired on 13.9.2008 and another of

complainant’s uncle Shri Parhlad Narain Mehta had expired on

15.11.2020, whereas the sale deeds had been executed much after

their death by way of impersonation or on the basis of some

forged Power of Attorney, whereas any such Power of Attorney

would lose its sanctity upon death of the executors. It is further

alleged therein that Tehsildar Lakhwinder Singh, Registry Clerk

Gurminder Singh, Deed Writer Sachin Kumar, Advocate, Surjit

Singh Nambardar had all connived for the purpose of said fraud

and that the sale deeds had been witnessed by Kuldeep Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the

petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case and

that petitioner – Reeta Rani had purchased the land on the basis

of sale deeds, which were duly registered in the office of Revenue

Department and that in case there was any defect in the title or

the seller had impersonated or had committed any fraud, she was

not aware of the same and that she had purchased the property

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 11

by making payments and, as such, deserves to be given the

benefit of doubt being a bona fide purchaser. It has also been

submitted that as a matter of fact the land purchased by

petitioner ; Reeta Rani is a different piece of land and is not part

of the ancestral property of the complainant and that her vendors

are entirely different and there is nothing wrong in the sale deed

executed in her favour.

Learned counsel while pressing upon the petition filed on

behalf of petitioners – Parwinder Singh and Jyoti submitted that

admittedly none of them is a beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent

sale deeds and that they have been nominated as accused on the

premises that they had signed as witnesses on the sale deeds. It

has been submitted that merely witnessing a sale deed is not

sufficient to attribute any fraudulent intention on the part of the

petitioners and, as such, they deserve to be released on

anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion for 14.01.2025.

Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, petitioners – Parwinder

Singh and Jyoti be released on interim bail subject to his

furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of

Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, petitioners – Parwinder

Singh and Jyoti shall join the investigation as and when called

upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and

shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482

BNSS.

Petitioner – Reeta Rani shall furnish detailed information

as regards her vendors and also as regards her source of income

on the next date of hearing.

A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected

case

.”

Thereafter, said interim order was continued during all subsequent

proceedings.

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 12

11.On   21.03.2025,   in   the   case   of   petitioner-accused   Reeta   Rani

(CRM-M-64813-2024),   although   she   was   not   directed   to   join   the

investigation, her arrest was stayed. Order reads as under:

“1. During the course of the hearing, it was understood from

the respective counsels that the main accused, namely, Kirpal

Singh, husband of Jaswinder Kaur, executed a fraudulent power

of attorney in his own favour on 24.06.2024. In this power of

attorney, one Jyoti was a witness, who in fact, is the daughter of

one of the accused, Reeta Rani (thepetitioner herein).

Subsequently, as a power of attorney holder of originalowners,

Kirpal Singh executed two sale deeds, transferring the land in the

name of his own wife namely Jaswinder Kaur, i.e. sale deeds

dated 08.07.2024 (for 12 kanal 18 marlas) and 27.06.2024 (for 7

kanal 6 marlas)

2. Similarly, another sale deed was executed in favour of the

accused, namely, Reeta Rani (petitioner herein), for 11 Kanal 14

Marlas, dated 15.07.2024. This sale deed was executed by

projecting, as if, the actual owners have sold it in favour of Reeta

Rani.

Notably, the mobile number 98789;37761 as mentioned in

the sale deed, is the same number which is there in the sale deeds

executed in favour of Jaswinder Kaur, also. However, learned

counsel for the complainant, the learned State counsel, or the

Investigating Officer present in court, are not in a position to

explain, as to whom this mobile number actually belongs.

3. It has also been brought to the Court's attention that, till

date, neither Jaswinder Kaur nor Kirpal Singh, who prima facie

seems to be the actual conspirators, and also never have been

granted bail, nor any substantive action has been taken by the

Investigating Agency to arrest them. Court wishes to know and

understand the reason behind this.

4. List again on 01.04.2025.

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 13

However, it is made clear that if the necessary legal steps

are not taken before the next date of hearing, the concerned

Senior Superintendent of Police would ensure his presence before

this Court on the next date of hearing, to clarify the facts.

5. In the meanwhile, petitioner ; Reeta Rani shall not be

arrested. However, question of joining of the investigation by the

petitioner, would be examined on the next date of hearing.

6. Interim order dated 20.12.2024, passed in CRM;M;

64814;2024, would also continue till the next date of hearing.

7. Let copy of this order be sent to the concerned SSP for

necessary action.”

12. Vide   order   dated   04.04.2025   passed   in   CRM-M-64813-

2024, CRM-M-64814-2024 and CRM-M-13686-2025, it was clarified

that if accused Reeta Rani, Parwinder Singh, and Jyoti  are required to

join the investigation, they shall be served with prior notice, and any

violation of this direction would be dealt with seriously.

Submissions on Behalf of Petitioners

Submission   on   Behalf   of   Petitioner  Reeta   Rani   (CRM-M-

64813-2024)

13. Mr. B.S. Khehar, learned counsel representing petitioner

Reeta Rani, submitted that the petitioner-Reeta Rani purchased the land

vide sale deed dated 15.07.2024 (P-3), measuring 11 Kanal 14 Marla  04

sarsahi, from its owners Malvi Devi Rani, Davinder Pal, Mohan Kumari,

Sudarshana Kumari, Bihari Lal, Batali Ram, Janki Lal, Dina Nath, Viday

Sagar, and Satguru Nath. However, the said land is not the same as that

detailed in the FIR; therefore, being a different property, the petitioner

cannot be termed an accused in relation to the allegations concerning the

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 14

land mentioned in the FIR. Counsel further submitted that the sale

consideration of about Rs.28,48,000 was duly paid after making the

necessary arrangements, as evidenced by the notarized affidavit dated

11.01.2025 executed by Amrik Singh and Joga Singh. It was further

argued  that   although,   her   arrest   was   stayed  by   this  Court   but   the

statement by the State counsel, alleging non-cooperation by the petitioner

underscores her willingness to join the investigation, whereas she is

always ready to do so.

Learned   counsel   broadly   argued   that   whether   the   petitioner’s

purchase of the land constitutes a fraudulent transaction, is an issue

which would  be examined by the trial court on the basis of evidence, yet

to be adduced before it.

14. With   regard   to   the   remaining   two   accused,   namely

Parwinder Singh and Jyoti, Mr. B.S. Khehar submitted that they are not

direct beneficiaries of the alleged fraudulent transaction. Being merely

witnesses to the sale deed, they are not required to undergo custodial

interrogation. Any allegation against them is to be established through

documentary evidence, and both the petitioners are always ready and

willing to continue to cooperate during the investigation, whenever it is

required. It was further pointed out that, in view of the interim order

dated 20.12.2024, both Parwinder Singh and Jyoti have already been

participated in the investigation.

Additionally,   learned  counsel  argued   that   the   sale  deed

executed in favour of Reeta Rani, which was witnessed by her co-

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 15

accused Parwinder Singh and Jyoti, has since been cancelled, and the

land has also been restored back in the names of the previous owners, no

purpose would be achieved with the custodial interrogation of any of the

petitioners. 

Accordingly, counsel prayed for grant of the anticipatory

bail to all the three petitioners namely Reeta Rani (in CRM-M-64813-

2024), Parwinder Singh and Jyoti (in CRM-M-64814-2024).

Submission on Behalf of Petitioner Kamaljit Singh (CRM-M-20597-

2025)

15. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel representing petitioner

Kamaljit Singh, submitted that the petitioner is employed as a Class-IV

peon in the Tehsil Office, Garshankar, for approximately 20 years and

was never found involved in any other similar activity in the past. His

duty was limited i.e. to serve notices, in compliance with the order dated

06.09.2024, in connection with which he submitted his report. As per the

record, no fault has been found in his functioning, except for the bald

allegations   mentioned   in   the   reply/status   report.   Learned   counsel

emphasized that the petitioner cannot be considered a beneficiary in any

manner   of   the   alleged   fraud   committed   by   the   other  co-accused.

Therefore, there is no gain attributed to him, and he should not be

subjected to custodial interrogation. However, petitioner Kamaljit Singh

has expressed his willingness to join the investigation if permitted, while

protecting him from arrest.

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 16

Submission on Behalf of Petitioner Kirpal Singh @ Garpal Singh

(CRM-M-55567-2025)

16. Learned counsel representing petitioner Kirpal Singh @

Garpal   Singh,   aged   59   years,   submitted   that   the   case   against   the

petitioner is false. The land in question was sold to his wife, Jaswinder

Kaur, through a bank loan of Rs.12 lakhs. Had there been any motive to

commit fraud for unlawful monetary gain or to grab land, there would

have been no reason to borrow a bank loan. Any fake witnesses, if

produced, were not at the petitioner’s instance, but rather at the instance

of other accused. It was further submitted that the witnesses were duly

identified by the Lambardar and the attesting witness Kuldeep Singh;

therefore, the petitioner could not have knowledge of the death of the

original owners, as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel further argued

that   the   charges   primarily   depend   on   documentary   evidence,   and

custodial   interrogation   would   not   serve   any   meaningful   purpose.

Moreover, the petitioner has been in custody for more than seven months

and fifteen days, and nothing further remains to be recovered from him.

Considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time, learned

counsel prayed for the grant of regular bail.

Submission on Behalf of Petitioner Jaswinder Kaur w/o Kirpal Singh

@ Garpal Singh (CRM-M-36542-2025)

17. Ms.   Simsi   Dhir   Malhtora,   learned   counsel   representing

petitioner Jaswinder Kaur, submitted arguments in the same terms as

those   addressed   on   behalf   of   petitioner-Kirpal   Singh.   It   is   further

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 17

submitted that, to protect her rights in the purchased land, the petitioner

has filed Civil Suit No. CS-614/2024 on 08.01.2024, seeking a decree of

declaration and permanent injunction. Until the said civil suit is decided,

no  definitive conclusion can be drawn regarding the  allegations  of

fraudulent purchase of the land in question. Learned counsel further

submitted that petitioner Jaswinder Kaur may succeed in the civil suit on

the plea of being a bona fide purchaser even if fraud is proved, as the

property was purchased through a bank loan of Rs.12 lakhs from Punjab

National Bank. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody

since   02.04.2025,   and   any   further   incarceration   would   serve   no

meaningful purpose, as nothing  more is  to be recovered  from her.

Learned counsel prayed for the release of petitioner Jaswinder Kaur on

regular bail by allowing the petition.

Arguments of Learned State Counsel

18. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for bail on

behalf of the respective petitioners, submitted that the role of each  of the

accused has been clearly delineated in the reply/status report filed by the

State. Primary contention raised by learned State counsel is that during

the investigation, it was found that at the time of registration of all the

aforesaid sale deeds, as well as the preparation of the power of attorney

by accused Kirpal Singh, only a single mobile number, i.e., 9878937761,

was used, which is registered in the name of Rajwinder Kaur, daughter of

Kirpal Singh.

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 18

Mr.   Neeraj   Madaan,   Senior   Deputy  Advocate   General,

Punjab, submitted that the involvement of accused Kirpal Singh and his

family members, including Jaswinder Kaur and Reeta Rani, appears to be

evident. The fact that the same mobile number was mentioned in the

execution of multiple documents indicates a premeditated act allegedly

committed in collusion among them.

Learned   State   counsel   further   contended   that   custodial

interrogation of accused Reeta Rani is necessary to ascertain the actual

truth, as she succeeded in acquiring rights over a substantial portion of

land measuring 11 Kanal and 14 Marla vide sale deed dated 15.07.2024. 

Court Observation

19. I have carefully considered the submissions addressed by the

respective counsel before this Court. I have also perused the pleadings,

reply/status   report,   and   the   notes   submitted   during  the   course   of

arguments.

20. There can be any dispute that all the offences involved in the

present case are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate. Apparently,

the prime accused in this matter are Kirpal Singh and Jaswinder Kaur,

who, according to the FIR, first caused a General Power of Attorney to be

prepared in Kirpal Singh’s name through impersonation by fictitious

persons, and subsequently executed sale deeds in favour of Jaswinder

Kaur. Both of them were arrested on 02.04.2025 and have since been in

custody,   having   undergone   investigation   and   interrogation   by   the

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 19

Investigating Agency for a period of approximately seven months and

twenty days. At this stage, there is no justification for subjecting them to

further custodial interrogation for the purpose of effecting any recovery,

particularly as the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and

may take considerable time.

21. As regards petitioner Reeta Rani (CRM-M-64813-2024),

although she had temporarily acquired rights in the property, Mr. B.S.

Khehar, Advocate, has pointed out that the sale deeds in her favour have

already been cancelled by the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate

vide order dated 23.09.2024. Learned State counsel could not explain as

to  how custodial interrogation of the accused would materially assist the

prosecution,   particularly   when   the   allegations   primarily   require

verification through documentary evidence. Records regarding Aadhaar

cards, registered sale deeds, mutations, and Jamabandis, among others,

are expected to be available in the concerned public offices.

Earlier arrest of petitioner Reeta Rani had been stayed;  and

vide order dated 01.04.2025, an opportunity was specifically provided to

the State to summon her for investigation by serving proper notice. The

relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

"5. It is also clarified that in case the accused named

Reeta Rani, Parwinder Singh, and Jyoti are required to join

the investigation, they should be served notice in advance,

and any violation in that regard would be viewed seriously

for taking strict action against the Chief of Police in the

District."

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 20

Accordingly,   State continues to have the opportunity to

examine the petitioner in connection with the investigation. It is also

well-settled that custodial interrogation cannot be considered the sole

method for conducting an investigation unless substantiated with specific

reasons.

22. As far as petitioners Parwinder Singh and Jyoti (CRM-M-

64814-2024) are concerned, this Court had already granted them the

opportunity   to   join   the   investigation   vide   order   dated   20.12.2024.

Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners   has   submitted   that   both   have

complied   with   this   direction   and   have   actively   participated   in   the

investigation.

23. Regarding petitioner-Kamaljit Singh, he does not appear to

be a direct beneficiary of the alleged fraud, still involvement is to be

proved. Therefore, there appears to be no such necessity to subject him to

custodial interrogation in the absence of any sound reason.

24. In the totality of circumstances, considering the role of each

accused, all the aforementioned petitions are allowed in the following

terms:

i) CRM-M-55567-2025 – Kirpal Singh @ Garpal Singh

ii) CRM-M-36542-2025 – Jaswinder Kaur

Petitioners Kirpal Singh @ Garpal Singh and Jaswinder

Kaur are  ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to their

furnishing the requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 21

Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate

concerned, provided they are not required in any other case.

iii)CRM-M-64813-2024 – Reeta Rani

iv)CRM-M-20597-2025 – Kamaljit Singh

Petitioners Reeta Rani and Kamaljit Singh, were protected

from arrest vide orders dated 21.03.2025 and 21.04.2025,passed by this

Court, which  is continuing till date. They  are  directed to  join  the

investigation within three weeks from today, or as and when required by

the   Investigating  Agency   upon   issuance   of   a   valid   notice   by   the

Investigating Officer. In case they fail to do so, the concession of bail

shall be deemed to have become inoperative.

Upon joining the investigation and in case of their arrest,

they shall be  released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the

satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Further they shall also comply with

all conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

However, present order would be subject to the submission

of their passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if

they possess, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, they

would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that they do not possess any

passport.

It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not

complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically.

v) CRM-M-64814-2025 – Parwinder Singh and Jyoti

CRM-M-64813-2024 and other connected cases 22

In this petition,  interim order dated 20.12.2024 is made

absolute. However, petitioners Parwinder Singh and Jyoti shall continue

to join the investigation as and when required and shall strictly comply

with the conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

However, present order would be subject to the submission

of their passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if

they possess, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, they

would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that they do not possess any

passport.

It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not

complied with, this order would be considered as non operative

automatically.

Accordingly, all petitions stand disposed of.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other

connected cases.

04.12.2025

Rashmi

(SANJAY VASHISTH)

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No