CRM-M/48765/2026 of ASHOK BATRA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR on 10 September 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-48765

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

Ashok Batra

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

Nagarik Surak grant of pre-a dated 12.08.2 61(2), 351(3) Mohali.

2. hand is drawn Court (whereb reads as under 5-2026

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-48765

48765-2

versus ab and another

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. Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, Adv Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Pu Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advoc Mr. Harpreet S. Mulati, Advocate, Mr. Ankush Anand, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Kaushal, Advocate for r ***** ***** ***** ***** OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed ksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to arrest/anticipatory bail to the petiti 2026, registered for the offences p of the BNS, 2023, at Police Stat For the sake of convenience, rele n from the order dated 21.08.2026 by anticipatory bail plea of the p r:

HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH

....Petitioner

....Respondents ET GOEL ET GOEL ET GOEL ET GOEL ocate and petitioner. unjab. cate with

respondent No.2 – complainant. under Section 482 of Bharatiya o be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for ioner, in case bearing FIR No.176 punishable under Sections 318(4), tion Phase-1, District SAS Nagar, evant factual milieu of the case in passed by the concerned Sessions petitioner was declined); the same r s a r

, , n s e MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-48765

48765-2026

“4.

The complainant Sanjam Harish son of Satwant Singh Harish got registered the above referred FIR under Section 318(4), 61(2), 351(3) of BNS against the accused Mohinder Singh Channa, Arvinder Singh Channa, Hari Krishan Kakkar, Kanta Rani, Upma Kakkar, Ashok Batra and Pawan Kumar for entering into a criminal conspiracy, cheating the complainant of more than Rs.12.50 Crores by fraudulently inducing him to purchase an industrial plot no.B-32, Phase 3, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali and deliberately concealing pending litigation, making false representations regarding the title and legal status of the property, executing and thereafter, canceling the registered Will and General Power of Attorney, fraudulently asserting competing rights over the property by filing an application before GMADA and committing other cognizable offences. The complainant intended to set up an industry and was looking out for an industrial plot in Mohali. He got his requirement noted with various real estate brokers. The accused Mohinder Singh Channa and his son Ravinder Singh Channa jointly approached the complainant through property dealers Ashok Batra, Mankaran Talwar and Pawan Kumar for the sale of industrial plot no. B-32, Industrial Area, Phase-3, SAS Nagar, Mohali. During the negotiation, accused Mohinder Singh Channa and Ravinder Singh Channa jointly represented and assured the complainant that the aforesaid property was absolutely free from all encumbrances, disputes, pending litigation or third party claim and the title was clear, marketable and capable of being transferred without any legal impediment. Relying upon the assurances and representations, the complainant agreed to purchase the said property. As a token of his bonafide intention and faith, he paid Mohinder Singh Channa and Ravinder Singh Channa, an sum of Rs.90 Lakhs by way of cheque no.000442 dated 26.10.2022. Thereafter, he further paid a sum of Rs.50 Lakh through RTGS on 30.12.2022 towards earnest money. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,40,00,000/- was paid towards the proposed sale consideration. Thereafter, the complainant requested Mohinder Singh to proceed further with the bargain, but he expressed certain reservations and the said conduct raised the suspicion in complainant’s mind. He got the records checked and was astonished to find that the said property was already the subject matter of the pending litigation before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in RSA No.504 of 2019 titled as Baljit Singh and others Vs. Mohinder Singh Channa and others. He immediately confronted the accused Mohinder Singh Channa and his son Ravinder Singh Channa and others as they had deliberately concealed the existence of the aforesaid litigation before obtaining the earnest money from him. Accused Mohinder Singh Channa introduced the complainant to accused Hari Krishan Kakkar by falsely representing that he was an advocate practicing before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and was handling all the legal matter pertaining to the said property. Hari Krishan Kakkar assured the complainant that he was in contact with the opposite party in pending litigation and represented that if the amount demanded by them was paid, the dispute would be amicably resolved and the RSA pending before the Hon’ble High Court would be withdrawn. When the complainant demanded the refund of earnest money on account of fraudulent concealment of pending litigation, accused Mohinder Singh Channa, Ravinder Singh Channa and Hari Krishan Kakkar acting in concert and in furtherance of their common intention persuaded and induced the complainant not to withdraw from the transaction. Having already invested substantial amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- and being repeatedly assured that the pending litigation would be settled and withdrawn, the complainant was left with no practical alternative, but to continue with the transaction and agreed to the proposed settlement with the opposite party. The complainant further came to know that Late Sh. Shiv Das Kapoor was the original allottee of the industrial plot in question MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-48765

48765-2026

since the year 1975. He had executed a Will in favour of Mohinder Singh Channa and a Special Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Ranjit Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh Channa. These facts were also not disclosed to the complainant earlier. It also came to the notice of the complainant that in the year 1987, Smt. Ranjit Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh accused had entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid property with Late Mohinder Singh of Delhi. Despite the said agreement to sell, the ownership of the property ultimately came to be transferred in favour of accused Mohinder Singh Channa in the year 1999. Upon confronting the accused with these facts, the accused Mohinder Singh Channa, Ravinder Singh Channa and Hari Krishan Kakkar represented that there was no legal impediment in the title and assured the complainant that the transaction was valid and lawful. Believing the said assurances extended by the accused persons, the complainant paid the remaining sale consideration through bank channels. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.6,10,00,000/- stood transferred in the account of Mohinder Singh Channa and full and final receipt confirming that the industrial plot has been sold to the complainant, had been issued. He also executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney and Will in favour of complainant's father namely Satwant Singh Harish alongwith supporting documents and affidavits. After securing the entire sale consideration and executing said documents, Mohinder Singh Channa disclosed to the complainant that the actual physical possession of the industrial plot was not with him, but it was with Baljit Singh, Varinderpal Singh and Kanwarjit Singh, the legal heirs of Late Mohinder Singh of Delhi. He stated that unless a separate settlement was arrived at with them by paying additional amount, the possession of the property could neither be obtained nor delivered to the complainant. Having already paid almost the entire sale consideration and being left with no alternative, the complainant was constrained to enter into an agreement with the legal heirs of Late Mohinder Singh of Delhi. The entire documentation relating to the transaction was prepared under the supervision of accused Hari Krishan Kakkar. The execution of the said documents took place in the presence of accused Ravinder Singh Channa, Hari Krishan Kakkar, Sarthak Kakkar and was witnessed by accused Ashok Batra. However, the affidavits and declarations were executed by them to deceive the complainant. The complainant entered into a settlement with Baljit Singh, Varinderpal Singh and Kanwarjit Singh, the LRs of Late Mohinder Singh of Delhi and pursuant to the said settlement and solely to secure the withdrawal of pending litigation, relinquishment of their claim and delivery of vacant and physical possession of the aforesaid industrial plot, the complainant made payments on different dates through demand drafts to the LRs of Late Sh. Mohinder Singh of Delhi. He had paid Rs.5,40,00,000/- to them and they withdrew the RSA No.504 of 2019 pending before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and handed over the vacant and physical possession of the plot to the complainant. Believing that all the disputes had finally come to an end, the complainant took over the possession of the property and secured the premises, installed CCTV cameras. Thereafter, he applied to GMADA for issuance of NO Objection Certificate and transfer of the industrial plot in favour of Satwant Singh Harish, but he was surprised when he received a legal notice dated 12.05.2026 issued by Sarthak Kakkar, son of Accused Hari Krishan Kakkar, acting on behalf of and under the instructions of accused Mohinder Singh Channa informing the complainant that the registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.02.2024 executed in favour of the complainant had been unilaterally canceled. When the complainant confronted the accused, it was discovered that another agreement to sell of 2007 was executed in favour of Harcharan Singh Ranauta. The accused again represented that if the complainant intends to obtain the title of the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-48765

48765-2026

property in his own name, he needs to settle the claims of Harcharan Singh Ranauta and his son Manvinder Ranauta as well. The complainant had invested an enormous amount of his life’s saving and being left with no alternative to protect his investment, he further paid a sum of Rs.1 Crore through cheque no.000261 dated 29.06.2006 to Harcharan Singh Ranauta. The complainant came to know that accused Hari Krishan Kakkar has himself asserted independent rights over the said property before GMADA. On 06.07.2026, accused Hari Krishan Kakkar alongwith his mother Kanta Rani and wife Upma Kakkar submitted an application before GMADA seeking issuance of NOC in their own name in respect of the same plot. The accused persons on 15.06.2026, acting in furtherance of their common intention and criminal conspiracy attempted to take illegal and forcible possession of the industrial plot, despite the complainant being in physical lawful possession. The entire incident was captured and recorded in the CCTV cameras. Another claimant namely Amrinder Singh surfaced and asserted his right in respect of the same property on the basis of agreement to sell allegedly executed in the year 2003 by legal heirs of Late Mohinder Singh of Delhi and litigation regarding the same was pending between them. On the basis of the allegations put forth, the FIR was registered.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It has been urged that the representation of the property in question that it was “absolutely free from all encumbrances, disputes, pending litigation or third-party claims” and that the title was clear and marketable etc., is attributed to co-accused – Mohinder Singh Channa, Ravinder Singh Channa and Hari Krishan Kakkar. Learned counsel has argued that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had ever made any false representation in respect of property in question and participated in preparation or remained a witness to any document. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in question as the petitioner was not involved in the case in hand at any stage. Furthermore, neither any offence of conspiracy is made out against the petitioner nor is there any allegation of wrongful gain accruing to the petitioner from the alleged transactions. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner had neither demanded any amount nor induced the complainant to make any payment to the co-accused at any stage. Learned counsel has further iterated that the investigation qua the petitioner is MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-48765

48765-2026

predominantly documentary and all the material is already in the possession of the prosecution, thus, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not imperative. Learned counsel has argued that even during enquiry proceedings, the petitioner has cooperated with the enquiry officer.

3.1. Learned counsel asserts that the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, the case in hand involves huge financial transactions. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for fair and effective investigation. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, in case he is enlarged on anticipatory bail. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.

4.1. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 – complainant has opposed the grant of petition in hand by arguing that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been argued that the accused persons, acting in concert and pursuant to their common intention, dishonestly induced the complainant to part with substantial amount by making false representations and assurances, concerning the sale and transfer of the property in question. It has been argued that the petitioner was not merely a property dealer or disinterred intermediary; rather he played an active and continuing role at every material stage MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-48765

48765-2026

of the transaction. It has been contended that the petitioner introduced co-accused – Mohinder Singh Channa and Ravinder Singh Channa to the complainant for the proposed sale of Industrial Plot No.B-32 and repeatedly represented that the title to the property was clear, marketable and free from litigation, encumbrances and third-party claims. Acting upon their representations and assurances, the complainant initially paid Rs.1,40,00,000/- to Mohinder Singh Channa. Despite their involvement in negotiation and facilitation of the transaction, the petitioner and co-accused – Pawan Kumar allegedly failed to disclose the factum of pending litigation concerning the property, the earlier agreement to sell, FIR No.232 dated 22.06.2007 and the competing claims over its title and possession. After the complainant discovered the pending litigation and demanded the return of his money, the petitioner and co-accused – Pawan Kumar, acting in concert with the other accused persons, allegedly persuaded him not to withdraw from the transaction and assured him that all disputes would be settled and the property in question would be delivered with a clear title and vacant possession thereof. It has been further iterated that the petitioner and co-accused – Pawan Kumar introduced Hari Krishan Kakkar as the person handling the legal affairs of the property and participated in inducing the complainant to continue making substantial payments. The role of the petitioner is further corroborated by his presence as an attesting witness to the registered General Power of Attorney and registered Will executed on 02.02.2024. Having personally appeared before the registering authority and attested the documents forming an integral part of the transaction, he cannot prima facie claim to have acted merely as an independent broker without knowledge of the transaction, the consideration paid or the representations made to the complainant. The co-accused – Pawan Kumar similarly acted as a principal intermediary between the complainant and the other accused. He allegedly participated in the initial inducement, vouched for the title and genuineness of the transaction, facilitated the payment of substantial consideration, persuaded the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-48765

48765-2026

complainant to continue after discovery of the concealed litigation and remained involved in the subsequent assurances concerning settlement, possession and transfer before the GMADA. His conduct, viewed cumulatively and not in isolation, prima facie discloses active participation in the alleged common design rather than the asserted limited role of being a mere property broker. Despite inducing the complainant to invest huge amount running in crores, after the competing claims and documents came to light, the petitioner and co-accused – Pawan Kumar allegedly stopped responding to the complainant’s telephone calls and failed to assist in completing the transfer or securing the return of his money. Their conduct before the transaction, during the successive payments and after discovery of the competing claims, forms an unbroken chain of circumstances requiring a thorough investigation into their knowledge, intention, communications with the other accused and receipt of any commission or financial benefit from the transaction. It is, therefore, submitted that, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 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, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. From a perusal of the prosecution case, material placed on record as well as the order passed by the concerned Sessions Judge, whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was declined, it prima facie emerges that the property in dispute was under litigation, still the same was agreed to be sold to the complainant. It has been noted by the Court below that the accused persons failed to disclose the pending litigation or the various Agreements to Sell, executed in respect thereof, to the complainant. It was further noted that the sale consideration paid by the complainant had predominantly been transferred to the accounts of MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-48765

48765-2026

Mohinder Singh Channa, his son Ravinder Singh and the legal representatives of late Mohinder Singh, however, the role of the remaining co-accused could not be altogether ruled out. The Court below further noted that the execution of a General Power of Attorney and a registered Will by Mohinder Singh Channa in favour of the complainant’s father, namely, Satwant Singh, after receipt of the entire sale consideration, followed by their unilateral revocation without any valid reason, prima facie indicate dishonest intention. It was further noted that the property dealers, namely co-accused – Pawan Kumar and Ashok Batra (petitioner herein), could not be absolved of their duty to verify the title and encumbrances pertaining to the property before recommending the same to the prospective purchaser. It has been further noted that co-accused – Kanta Rani and Upma Kakkar, family members of co-accused – Hari Krishan Kakkar, had applied to GMADA for issuance of NOC after the industrial plot in question had been agreed to be sold to the complainant and the entire sale consideration already stood paid through banking channels. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, it is prima facie borne out that the accused persons appear to have shared a common intention and entered into a criminal conspiracy to deceive the complainant by making successive false representations, thereby inducing him to part with approximately Rs.12.50 crore, and thereafter even attempting to forcibly take possession of the industrial plot in question from him.

6.1. Furthermore, the investigating agency has sought the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for effective recovery, verification of facts, and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. 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 a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-48765

48765-2026

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 prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 :1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)

“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. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, role attributed to the petitioner and magnitude & nature of the offence, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation, MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.11 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-48765

48765-2026

recover ill-gotten money& 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.

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 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment