CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH (106-2) CRM-M-67426-2025 (O&M) Date of decision :27.07.20266 UMESH VEEER VIKRAM SINGH ... Petitionerr Versus CENTRAL BBUREAU OF INVESTIGATIOON, CHANDIGARH ...Respondentt CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate wwith MMs. Dilpreet Kaur, Advocate andd MMr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocatee with MMr. R.S. Bagga, Advocate for thee petitioner MMr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Spl. PP foor the respondent-CBI MMr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advo cate with MMs. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate forr the complainant * *** MANISHA BBATRA, J. (ORAL) CRM-11319-22026 1. AApplication for placing on recorrd is allowed subject to all justt exceptions andd the documents appended with tthe application are ordered to bee placed on recoord as Annexure P-10 to P-12 resspectively. CRM-23473-22026 1. AApplication for placing on recorrd is allowed subject to all justt exceptions andd the documents appended with tthe application are ordered to bee placed on recoord as Annexure P-13 to P-14 resspectively. AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 2 CRM-M-674226-2025

1. TThe instant petition has been petittion filed by the petitioner underr Section 483 off Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Saanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”)) for grant of rregular bail in cases bearing RRC No.0512023S00012 & RCC No.0512023S000013 (For short RC-12 annd RC-13 respectively) datedd 15.11.2023 reggistered under Section 120-B reead with Sections 452, 323, 506,, 427, 148, 149 , 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 1993 of IPC at Police Station CBI,, Special Crimee Branch, Chandigarh. 2. VVide order dated 18.10.2023 paassed in CRM-M-6340-2023, aa direction had been issued by this Court to the respondent-CBI to conductt investigation iin cases bearing FIR No.133 daated 10.03.2022 registered underr Sections 452, 323, 506, 427, 120B, 148 andd 149 of IPC at Police Stationn Zirakpur, Disttrict SAS Nagar (Mohali) (For short “FIR No.133”) and casee bearing FIR NNo.303 dated 04.10.2023 registtered under Sections 420, 465,, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station DDera Bassi, District SAS Nagarr (Mohali) (For short “FIR No.303”).

3. FFIR No.133 was lodged by HHarjit Singh, Manager of Guruu Nanak Vidhyaa Bhandar Trust, Daryaganj, Neew Delhi (now to be mentionedd as “complainaant Trust”), alleging therein thaat 32 bighas of land situated att Zirakpur Patiaala Road had been purchased bby the complainant-Trust in thee year 1986 andd it was in possession of the samme. With intent to grab the saidd land, accused Sanjeev Kumar Gatha, Rajesh Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumarr and Sarabjit SSingh hatched a conspiracy withh their accomplices and had gott AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 3 registered a seeparate Trust with the name simmilar to that of the complainantt Trust and hadd got prepared different documeents. Inquiries were pending inn different offic es with regard to the said Trust. He alleged that on 10.03.2022,, the accused RRajesh Kumar Gabba alongwith his 10-12 accomplices enteredd inside the lannd of the Trust by being armeed with deadly weapons. Thee security guardds standing at the gate of the said land were assaulted withh weapons. Injuuries were caused to them and their phones as well as CCTVV cameras installled therein were damaged. Threeats were extended to the guardss and all this wwas done to take illegal possessiion of the land of the Trust. AA Special Investtigation Team (SIT) was constittuted and charge-sheet was filedd as against thee co-accused Sanjeev Kumar GGatha, Rajesh Kumar Gaba andd Manoj Kumar.

4. FFIR No.303 was registered on tthe basis of complaint filed byy Inder Deep aalleging that accused Sanjeev Kumar Gatha, Rajesh Kumar,, Sarabjit Singhh and Rajinder Kumar had create d and utilized forged documentss to claim own ership and possession of the laand owned by the complainantt Trust. 5. AAfter re-registration of both the aabove FIRs as RC No.12 and 13 respectively, tthe CBI had started conducted investigation. It was revealedd during investiigation that a fake Trust deed hhad been created by co-accusedd Rajesh Kumarr Gaba, Sarabjit Singh, Rajinderr Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar, ass per which a TTrust of the same name as thatt of the complainant-Trust wass purportedly shhown to be established on 07.03..1980 by Sona Ram and Harnamm Singh. In connnivance with Sub-Registrar KKuldeep Singh, a supplementaryy AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 4 trust deed waas registered in 2021 based on tthe above-said forged and fakee trust deed dateed 07.03.1980.

6. Itt was revealed during investigatiion that the present petitioner byy conniving withh the co-accused, prepared a foorged and fabricated order datedd 18.03.1948 puurported to have been issued in Special Appeal No.1 datedd 18.03.1948. HHe also got prepared one fake ssociety registration certificate inn the name of thhe complainant Trust alongwith memorandum of articles havingg the stamp of NNCT Delhi and had used the saame in connivance with the co--accused to prooject that it was a genuine docuument. He also got prepared 022 Wills. Both thhese Wills were also found to be forged and fabricated as per thee CFSL Report. First Will dated 16.02.1950 waas purportedly made by Naurattaa Singh shown to be executed in favour of Jaggath Seth Hardyal Singh and thee second Will ddated 07.02.1951 was purporteddly executed by Nauratta Singhh and Ajit Singhh in favour of Balbir Singh, who was father of the petitioner. Byy using those faake Wills and other documents and in connivance with the co--accused, the ppetitioner had got registered a leease deed of land owned by thee genuine Trust i.e. the complainant-Trust in favvour of accused Sanjeev Kumarr Gaba. He didd not respond to the summons aand warrants issued by the CBI.. Ultimately prooceedings for declaring him a pproclaimed offender/person hadd been initiated and he was declared as such viide order dated 15.07.2025. Hee surrendered b efore the Learned Trial Court oon 18.08.2025. An applicationn filed by him s eeking bail has been dismissed bby the Court of Learned Speciall Judge, CBI, Puunjab, SAS Nagar (Mohali) videe order dated 31.10.2025.

AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 5

7. Itt is argued by learned counsel foor the petitioner that he has beenn falsely implic ated in this case. He was not nnamed in either of the 02 FIRss Nos.133 and 3303. He was not even named in RC No.12 and RC No.13 ass registered by CBI. The original Trust in fact had been established onn 07.03.1980 byy Sona Ram, father of accusedd Rajinder Kumar and Harnamm Singh father of accused Sarabjit Singh. F ollowing the death of originall trustees, a suppplementary Trust deed was reggistered in the year 2021. He iss the actual ownner of the land in question on thhe basis of inheritance from hiss father Balbir Singh and has no relation wiith the complainant or the co--accused, both of whom are trying to usurp the land owned by him on the basiss of forged docuuments. Nauratta Singh, the acctual owner of the said land hadd executed Willl in the name of his father, wwhich was not registered. Thee petitioner hadd come to know about the doccuments relating to the land inn question after the death of his father. He hadd handed over the original Willss to the CBI annd has been nominated as accussed on the ground that the Willl executed by NNauratta Singh in favour of Jagatth Seth and Hardyal Singh is nott genuine. He is in custody since 18.08.2025. The chances of conclusion off trial in the neaar future are bleak as only 02 o ut of 145 prosecution witnessess have been exaamined so far. No useful purposee would be served by his furtherr incarceration. On account of his involvementt in some other cases, he cannott be denied bennefit of bail in this case. The ingredients for commission off subject offenc es are not attracted qua him. Wiith these broad submissions, it iss urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 6 8. PPer contra, learned Special Puublic Prosecutor for CBI andd learned Seniorr counsel for the complainant hhave argued that the allegationss against the peetitioner are serious in nature. HHis antecedents are not clean ass he is involvedd in 02 more cases of committinng offences of cheating, forgeryy and criminal bbreach of trust. He had evadedd the proclamation proceedingss and was declaared a proclaimed person. Theree are chances of his committingg similar offenc es or intimidating the witnesses or tampering with the record, iff extended beneefit of bail. It is, therefore, arrgued that the petition does nott deserve to be aallowed. 9. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties at considerable length.

10. TThe petitioner is alleged to havee claimed ownership of the landd in question owwned by the complainant-Trust on the basis of 02 Wills whichh have been fouund to be false and fabricated doocuments. He is also shown too have producedd some documents, during invesstigation, as to dissolution of thee genuine Trust , which are also alleged to havee been forged and fabricated byy him. These veery documents were further usedd by the co-accused Rajesh Gabaa and used for the purpose of claiming ownerrship with regard to the land inn dispute. The active complicity of the petitionner in commission of the subjectt offences standds prima facie established. The allegations levelled against himm are quite serioous in nature. The antecedents oof the petition are also not cleann since as per tthe record, 02 cases with regaard to property fraud had beenn registered agaiinst him. It is well-settled propo sition of law that grant of bail iss a discretionarry relief to be granted or denieed based on specific facts andd AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 7

circumstancess of each case. The factors such aas nature of accusations, severityy of punishmentt if the accusations entail a convviction and nature of evidence inn support of acccusations are to be seen. That appart, reasonable apprehension off tampering witth evidence or threatening the mmaterial witnesses is also to bee weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should alwaays be considered, and it is onlyy the element off genuineness that has to be con sidered in the matter of grant off bail.Taking innto consideration the gravity of tthe allegations and the attendantt facts and circcumstances, this Court is of thhe considered opinion that thee petitioner doees not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Accordingly,, finding no coompelling ground to allow thee present petition, the same iss dismissed. 11. Itt is made clear that any observaation made herein above is onlyy for the purposse of deciding the present petitiion and the same shall have noo bearing on thee merits of the case. 12. SSince the main petition has beenn dismissed pending application,, if any, is rendeered infructuous. (MMANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 27.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:-- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH (106-2) CRM-M-67426-2025 (O&M) Date of decision :27.07.20266 UMESH VEEER VIKRAM SINGH ... Petitionerr Versus CENTRAL BBUREAU OF INVESTIGATIOON, CHANDIGARH ...Respondentt CORAM: HHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MAANISHA BATRA Present: MMr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate wwith MMs. Dilpreet Kaur, Advocate andd MMr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocatee with MMr. R.S. Bagga, Advocate for thee petitioner MMr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Spl. PP foor the respondent-CBI MMr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advo cate with MMs. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate forr the complainant * *** MANISHA BBATRA, J. (ORAL) CRM-11319-22026 1. AApplication for placing on recorrd is allowed subject to all justt exceptions andd the documents appended with tthe application are ordered to bee placed on recoord as Annexure P-10 to P-12 resspectively. CRM-23473-22026 1. AApplication for placing on recorrd is allowed subject to all justt exceptions andd the documents appended with tthe application are ordered to bee placed on recoord as Annexure P-13 to P-14 resspectively. AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 2 CRM-M-674226-2025

1. TThe instant petition has been petittion filed by the petitioner underr Section 483 off Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Saanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”)) for grant of rregular bail in cases bearing RRC No.0512023S00012 & RCC No.0512023S000013 (For short RC-12 annd RC-13 respectively) datedd 15.11.2023 reggistered under Section 120-B reead with Sections 452, 323, 506,, 427, 148, 149 , 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 1993 of IPC at Police Station CBI,, Special Crimee Branch, Chandigarh. 2. VVide order dated 18.10.2023 paassed in CRM-M-6340-2023, aa direction had been issued by this Court to the respondent-CBI to conductt investigation iin cases bearing FIR No.133 daated 10.03.2022 registered underr Sections 452, 323, 506, 427, 120B, 148 andd 149 of IPC at Police Stationn Zirakpur, Disttrict SAS Nagar (Mohali) (For short “FIR No.133”) and casee bearing FIR NNo.303 dated 04.10.2023 registtered under Sections 420, 465,, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station DDera Bassi, District SAS Nagarr (Mohali) (For short “FIR No.303”).

3. FFIR No.133 was lodged by HHarjit Singh, Manager of Guruu Nanak Vidhyaa Bhandar Trust, Daryaganj, Neew Delhi (now to be mentionedd as “complainaant Trust”), alleging therein thaat 32 bighas of land situated att Zirakpur Patiaala Road had been purchased bby the complainant-Trust in thee year 1986 andd it was in possession of the samme. With intent to grab the saidd land, accused Sanjeev Kumar Gatha, Rajesh Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumarr and Sarabjit SSingh hatched a conspiracy withh their accomplices and had gott AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 3 registered a seeparate Trust with the name simmilar to that of the complainantt Trust and hadd got prepared different documeents. Inquiries were pending inn different offic es with regard to the said Trust. He alleged that on 10.03.2022,, the accused RRajesh Kumar Gabba alongwith his 10-12 accomplices enteredd inside the lannd of the Trust by being armeed with deadly weapons. Thee security guardds standing at the gate of the said land were assaulted withh weapons. Injuuries were caused to them and their phones as well as CCTVV cameras installled therein were damaged. Threeats were extended to the guardss and all this wwas done to take illegal possessiion of the land of the Trust. AA Special Investtigation Team (SIT) was constittuted and charge-sheet was filedd as against thee co-accused Sanjeev Kumar GGatha, Rajesh Kumar Gaba andd Manoj Kumar.

4. FFIR No.303 was registered on tthe basis of complaint filed byy Inder Deep aalleging that accused Sanjeev Kumar Gatha, Rajesh Kumar,, Sarabjit Singhh and Rajinder Kumar had create d and utilized forged documentss to claim own ership and possession of the laand owned by the complainantt Trust. 5. AAfter re-registration of both the aabove FIRs as RC No.12 and 13 respectively, tthe CBI had started conducted investigation. It was revealedd during investiigation that a fake Trust deed hhad been created by co-accusedd Rajesh Kumarr Gaba, Sarabjit Singh, Rajinderr Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar, ass per which a TTrust of the same name as thatt of the complainant-Trust wass purportedly shhown to be established on 07.03..1980 by Sona Ram and Harnamm Singh. In connnivance with Sub-Registrar KKuldeep Singh, a supplementaryy AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 4 trust deed waas registered in 2021 based on tthe above-said forged and fakee trust deed dateed 07.03.1980.

6. Itt was revealed during investigatiion that the present petitioner byy conniving withh the co-accused, prepared a foorged and fabricated order datedd 18.03.1948 puurported to have been issued in Special Appeal No.1 datedd 18.03.1948. HHe also got prepared one fake ssociety registration certificate inn the name of thhe complainant Trust alongwith memorandum of articles havingg the stamp of NNCT Delhi and had used the saame in connivance with the co--accused to prooject that it was a genuine docuument. He also got prepared 022 Wills. Both thhese Wills were also found to be forged and fabricated as per thee CFSL Report. First Will dated 16.02.1950 waas purportedly made by Naurattaa Singh shown to be executed in favour of Jaggath Seth Hardyal Singh and thee second Will ddated 07.02.1951 was purporteddly executed by Nauratta Singhh and Ajit Singhh in favour of Balbir Singh, who was father of the petitioner. Byy using those faake Wills and other documents and in connivance with the co--accused, the ppetitioner had got registered a leease deed of land owned by thee genuine Trust i.e. the complainant-Trust in favvour of accused Sanjeev Kumarr Gaba. He didd not respond to the summons aand warrants issued by the CBI.. Ultimately prooceedings for declaring him a pproclaimed offender/person hadd been initiated and he was declared as such viide order dated 15.07.2025. Hee surrendered b efore the Learned Trial Court oon 18.08.2025. An applicationn filed by him s eeking bail has been dismissed bby the Court of Learned Speciall Judge, CBI, Puunjab, SAS Nagar (Mohali) videe order dated 31.10.2025.

AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 5

7. Itt is argued by learned counsel foor the petitioner that he has beenn falsely implic ated in this case. He was not nnamed in either of the 02 FIRss Nos.133 and 3303. He was not even named in RC No.12 and RC No.13 ass registered by CBI. The original Trust in fact had been established onn 07.03.1980 byy Sona Ram, father of accusedd Rajinder Kumar and Harnamm Singh father of accused Sarabjit Singh. F ollowing the death of originall trustees, a suppplementary Trust deed was reggistered in the year 2021. He iss the actual ownner of the land in question on thhe basis of inheritance from hiss father Balbir Singh and has no relation wiith the complainant or the co--accused, both of whom are trying to usurp the land owned by him on the basiss of forged docuuments. Nauratta Singh, the acctual owner of the said land hadd executed Willl in the name of his father, wwhich was not registered. Thee petitioner hadd come to know about the doccuments relating to the land inn question after the death of his father. He hadd handed over the original Willss to the CBI annd has been nominated as accussed on the ground that the Willl executed by NNauratta Singh in favour of Jagatth Seth and Hardyal Singh is nott genuine. He is in custody since 18.08.2025. The chances of conclusion off trial in the neaar future are bleak as only 02 o ut of 145 prosecution witnessess have been exaamined so far. No useful purposee would be served by his furtherr incarceration. On account of his involvementt in some other cases, he cannott be denied bennefit of bail in this case. The ingredients for commission off subject offenc es are not attracted qua him. Wiith these broad submissions, it iss urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 6 8. PPer contra, learned Special Puublic Prosecutor for CBI andd learned Seniorr counsel for the complainant hhave argued that the allegationss against the peetitioner are serious in nature. HHis antecedents are not clean ass he is involvedd in 02 more cases of committinng offences of cheating, forgeryy and criminal bbreach of trust. He had evadedd the proclamation proceedingss and was declaared a proclaimed person. Theree are chances of his committingg similar offenc es or intimidating the witnesses or tampering with the record, iff extended beneefit of bail. It is, therefore, arrgued that the petition does nott deserve to be aallowed. 9. TThis Court has heard the rival submissions made by learnedd counsel for thee parties at considerable length.

10. TThe petitioner is alleged to havee claimed ownership of the landd in question owwned by the complainant-Trust on the basis of 02 Wills whichh have been fouund to be false and fabricated doocuments. He is also shown too have producedd some documents, during invesstigation, as to dissolution of thee genuine Trust , which are also alleged to havee been forged and fabricated byy him. These veery documents were further usedd by the co-accused Rajesh Gabaa and used for the purpose of claiming ownerrship with regard to the land inn dispute. The active complicity of the petitionner in commission of the subjectt offences standds prima facie established. The allegations levelled against himm are quite serioous in nature. The antecedents oof the petition are also not cleann since as per tthe record, 02 cases with regaard to property fraud had beenn registered agaiinst him. It is well-settled propo sition of law that grant of bail iss a discretionarry relief to be granted or denieed based on specific facts andd AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-674226-2025 (O&M) 7

circumstancess of each case. The factors such aas nature of accusations, severityy of punishmentt if the accusations entail a convviction and nature of evidence inn support of acccusations are to be seen. That appart, reasonable apprehension off tampering witth evidence or threatening the mmaterial witnesses is also to bee weighed. Frivolity of prosecution should alwaays be considered, and it is onlyy the element off genuineness that has to be con sidered in the matter of grant off bail.Taking innto consideration the gravity of tthe allegations and the attendantt facts and circcumstances, this Court is of thhe considered opinion that thee petitioner doees not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Accordingly,, finding no coompelling ground to allow thee present petition, the same iss dismissed. 11. Itt is made clear that any observaation made herein above is onlyy for the purposse of deciding the present petitiion and the same shall have noo bearing on thee merits of the case. 12. SSince the main petition has beenn dismissed pending application,, if any, is rendeered infructuous. (MMANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 27.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:-- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.