CRM-M/45397/2026 of MOHAN SINGH TOMAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 10 September 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-45397

IN THE HI IN THE HI IN THE HI IN THE HI

Mohan Singh

State of Punja

Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

Present: Present: Present: Present:-

SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO

(Section 482 anticipatory b registered for IPC, 1860 (Se Commissioner

2. huge amount o

3. reveal that th 7-2026

IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-45397

45397-2 Tomar versus ab ion: ion: ion: ion: September 10 September 10 September 10 September 10, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 ading: ading: ading: ading: September September September September 11, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEE Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Pu Mr. Akashdeep Miglani, Advocate ***** ***** ***** *****

OEL OEL OEL OEL, , , , J. (ORAL) J. (ORAL) J. (ORAL) J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed un of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surak bail to the petitioner, in case bearin the offences punishable under Se ection 120-B of IPC added later o rate Ludhiana, District Ludhiana. The FIR in question pertains to a of money. Learned counsel has submitted tha he allegations leveled against the

HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

….Petitioner ….Respondent ET GOEL ET GOEL ET GOEL ET GOEL e petitioner. unjab. e for the complainant. nder Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. ksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of ng FIR No.0163 dated 27.09.2025, ections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of n), at Police Station Dugri, Police an allegation of fraud involving a at a bare perusal of the FIR would petitioner are wholly concocted,

r t . f , f e a d , MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-45397

45397-2026

improbable and devoid of any merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It has been iterated that the petitioner was inducted in the company – M/s Nestoria Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2026 as Director, and, thus, he cannot be held liable for any alleged transactions between the years 2022 to 2026. Learned counsel has further iterated that, in fact, the complainant is the proprietor of M/s Royal Venture and he had induced the petitioner – company to invest substantial amount in certain plots situated in the Royal Venture scheme at Village Ratanpur. Learned counsel has urged that in this regard, an FIR No.11191042260 dated 29.05.2026 had also been lodged against the complainant. Learned counsel has argued that neither any of the buyers/ beneficiaries of the alleged 18 sale deeds have ever raised any issue against M/s Nestoria Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. nor have they filed any complaint against the said company. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has joined investigation as and when called upon and has also provided relevant documents to the Investigating Officer and, thus, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

3.1. Learned counsel urged that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Rajinder Kumar has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Court below.

3.1. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. It has been urged that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-45397

45397-2026

4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of an affidavit dated 22.08.2026, which is already on record. The role of the petitioner, as mentioned in the said reply, reads thus: “14. That during investigation, on 19-05-2026, the complainant Gagandeep Singh gave supplementary statement to the Investigating Officer. He stated that on 23-07-2021 accused Rajinder Kumar @ Doctor and Rajiv Sood acquainted him with Nitin Singh Tomar, Mohan Singh Tomar, Directors of the company Nistoria Buildcone, Ahamadabad. They told the complainant that the Govt. is going to establish one new city in Gujarat and his company has a major role in this project. If the complainant and his investors are ready to invest the amount in his company then they will get huge profit. These persons also told him that Rajinder Kumar @ Doctor has joined in their company for the last about 4 years. They showed the complainant the master plan of the colony containing 100/100 sq yards plots. The complainant agreed to join their company. They agreed to given a plot of 100 sq yards @ Rs. 3 Lakhs per plot. In the meantime he also entered into agreement to purchase 8953 sq yards land from Nistoria Company at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per sq yards. At the instance of accused Rajinder Singh @ Doctor and the owner of the company, the complainant deposited amount of Rs.28 Lakhs in the Account No.50200053058320 of HDFC Bank, Ahmadabad in Nistoria company. The complainant has made payment of Rs.1.02 Crores on different dates to them in the presence of his friend Ankush Mehra. Except this amount, accused Rajinder Kumar and Rajiv Sood also received amount of Rs.82,15,800/- on account of commission and their person expenditure which were deposited in the bank account no.21340200001233 of Fedral Bank Khanna in the Royal Venture Company. xx xx xx xx

xx xx xx xx

xx xx xx xx

22.

22.

22.

22. ROLE ROLE ROLE ROLE OF THE PETITIONER: OF THE PETITIONER: OF THE PETITIONER: OF THE PETITIONER:-

That the petitioner is the owner of Nistoria company. At the instance of the petitioner, the complainant deposited amount in the bank accounts of different persons and paid some amount in cash. The petitioner did not execute the sale deeds of the land for which the amount was paid to them. The complainant has paid total amount of Rs.14,71,00,000/- to the petitioner and his companions. The petitioner and other accused persons supplied to the complainant, the copies of forged sale deeds. So the petitioner has committed fraud with the complainant of huge amount.”

4.1. Raising submissions in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has further argued that the petitioner and his co-accused has committed fraud with the complainant of a huge amount and the copies of the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-45397

45397-2026

alleged sale deed supplied to the complainant were found to be the forged one. It has been further argued that investigation, in the present case, is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. It has been contended that, in case, the petitioner is accorded the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also influence/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4.2. Learned counsel for the complainant, while raising submissions in tandem with the short reply dated 31.08.2026, which is already on record, has vehemently opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been argued that the petitioner along with his co-accused had induced the complainant to part with huge amount on the pretext of investing in land in question. It has been further argued that a forged sale deed in respect of land in question were given to the complainant and, thus, the petition ought not to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail as there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice, in case, he is released on anticipatory bail, and also interfere with the prosecution evidence. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. A perusal of the prosecution case, as well as the material available on record, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of money towards the proposed sale of land. Pursuant to such inducement, an amount of Rs.14,71,00,000/- was MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-45397

45397-2026

allegedly paid to the petitioner and his co-accused, partly through deposits in the bank accounts of different persons and partly in cash. Despite receipt of the aforesaid amount, the sale deeds in respect of the land were not executed and, instead, copies of forged sale deeds were allegedly supplied to the complainant. The allegations, thus, disclose the petitioner’s prima facie involvement in a serious offence involving a huge amount. The nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the magnitude of the offence in question do not persuade this Court to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.1. The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.

6.2. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appear to establish reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-45397

45397-2026

not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State State State State v. v. v. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under: “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

8. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record, the preliminary investigation, the nature of allegations and scale of the offence, appear to establish a reasonable basis for his accusation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed.

9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-45397

45397-2026

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 10 September 10 September 10 September 10, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment