Forgery to Usurp NRI Land Is Not a Routine Crime: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

“Such offences corrode institutional credibility and weaponize the absence of NRI owners—bail cannot be treated casually”, - In a sternly worded judgment exposing a widening pattern of NRI-targeted land scams, the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail to Baghel Singh and Raghuvir Singh, accused in a major conspiracy involving the impersonation of an NRI property owner to execute a fraudulent sale deed. Court held the scale and design of the fraud to be too grave to allow pre-arrest protection.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed: “This case is yet another example of a disturbing trend… where unscrupulous individuals take advantage of Non-Resident Indians, particularly those who are unable to visit India frequently.”

“Weaponized Absence, Systemic Deceit”—Court Slams Trend of Property Fraud Targeting NRIs

The accused were part of a scheme in which a fake impersonator appeared as the seller Deep Singh, a genuine property owner residing in the United States. The impugned sale deed, executed on 11.02.2025 for a 14 kanal plot in Ludhiana, was facilitated with forged identification documents. The sale consideration was set at just ₹30.20 lakhs, despite the property’s market value running into several crores. Crucially, the cheques issued as sale consideration were never encashed.

“The value of 14 kanals of land is worth several crore rupees and was sold by producing impersonator for only ₹30.20 lakhs… The cheques were never presented.”

The Court identified a well-orchestrated conspiracy involving officials of the Sub-Registrar’s office, advocates, revenue staff, and witnesses, all of whom allegedly enabled the fraud through deliberate certifications and false attestations.

“The petitioners and co-accused are part of a larger conspiracy to usurp properties of NRIs… the gravity of such acts extends far beyond individual transactions.”

Bail Denied Due to Seriousness of Allegations and Custodial Interrogation Requirement

Both Baghel Singh (a village Nambardar) and Raghuvir Singh were accused of actively assisting the impersonator Gurpreet Singh by identifying him as the owner, despite discrepancies in age and documentation.

The Court found that the impersonation was not only enabled but certified by public officials, including the Sub-Registrar, who had wrongly recorded and endorsed the presence of a non-existent witness.

“Sham Sunder was not present… but the Sub-Registrar certified his presence. The petitioner Baghel Singh and co-accused signed in his place.”

The State strongly opposed bail citing that custodial interrogation was imperative to trace the full extent of the conspiracy, the distribution of funds, and involvement of multiple government officials.

“CCTV footage confirms that the accused were present during the registration… the role of several others is yet to be unearthed.”

“These Are Not Conventional Crimes”—Court Warns Against Normalizing Deceit in Land Deals

The Court took judicial notice of the alarming rise in NRI property frauds, and issued a cautionary observation on the structural damage such acts cause to public confidence and governance.

“These offences are rooted in breach of trust… They not only impact financial security of the victims but also corrode institutional credibility and social conscience.”

“Legal safeguards are being routinely undermined… absence is being weaponized.”

Rejecting the plea that the petitioner was merely performing identification duties, the Court emphasized that due diligence was lacking, and in such a scam, “passive roles can be active enablers.”

Bail Petitions Dismissed, Departmental Action Ordered Against Nambardar

Holding that the magnitude, orchestration, and impact of the offence justified custodial probe, the Court dismissed both anticipatory bail petitions and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Ludhiana to proceed with disciplinary action against Baghel Singh: “This Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail… Deputy Commissioner is directed to take necessary disciplinary action against petitioner Baghel Singh.”

This decision marks a stern judicial stand against real estate fraud targeting diaspora citizens, emphasizing that such betrayals of trust cannot be trivialized as routine legal infractions.

Date of Decision: 19 May 2025