[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manish Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.7574 of 2026
Manish Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 23.04.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 29.04.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 29.04.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Simerpreet Sekhon, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Aman Jha, Advocate,
for the complainant.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
authenticity of this order /judgment
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short
"BNSS") seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
337 30.08.2024 DLF Sector 29, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Gurugram, District and 120-B of IPC
Gurugram
2. As per the allegations, a complaint was submitted by
complainant Radhika, an advocate by profession alleging that Hans Raj
Narula who was a senior UNICEF official serving in various countries and
capacities and who along with his family members, had shifted to USA in
June 1982, had applied for allotment of a plot on 16.08.1985 in the name of
his son Gaurav Narula. A plot bearing No.A-104 situated at Sushant Lok
Gurugram was allotted in his favour by promoters/builders Ansal Properties
and Industries (P) Ltd. Sale deed qua this plot was registered in favour of
Gaurav Narula in the year 1991. It was alleged that in January 2024, Gaurav
Narula and his mother came to know from some property dealer that a deal
to sell abovesaid plot had been made by someone while claiming himself to
be power of attorney holder of Gaurav Narula. The said property dealer also
shared photograph of a document dated 07.09.2023 indicating that Gaurav
Narual had acknowledged receipt of payment in US dollars to the tune of
Rs.1,20,222/- in consideration for sale of plot. The names of the parties
involved were mentioned in the said document. The passport number as well
as the US address of Gaurav Narula were not correctly mentioned in that
document. Gaurav Narula had obviously never given any power of attorney
in favour of anyone. His mother came to India and on making inquiries came
authenticity of this order /judgment
to know that a fake transfer deed was created showing transfer of the
property in question by Gaurav Narula in favour of the present petitioner.
The petitioner had claimed that he was real brother of Gaurav Narula. The
signatures of Gaurav Narula on the transfer deed were forged. Photograph of
some impostor was affixed on the transfer deed projecting him as victim
Gaurav Narula. Infact, Gaurav Narula had not visited India since January
2020. His address and particulars were also not correctly mentioned. By
alleging that a fake and forged transfer deed had been prepared with intent to
play fraud upon the victim Gaurav Narula, for the purpose of grabbing land
property owned by him and with intent to cause wrongful loss to the victim,
prayer had been made for taking action.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. It was also revealed that forged Aadhar Card and PAN card
purported to be that of the victim, were used at the time of execution and
registration of the transfer deed. It was also revealed that on 06.04.2025, the
petitioner had sold the plot in question to one Anand Aggarwal on the basis
of the abovesaid fake transfer deed for sale consideration of an amount of
Rs.10,63,67,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.2,71,00,000/- was
transferred in the bank account of the petitioner through RTGS and the
remaining amount was given through PDC. The petitioner was arrested on
28.08.2025. He was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting
his involvement and showing that he in connivance with the co-accused
Varun Jain and Bakhshish had hatched a conspiracy and created fake Aadhar
authenticity of this order /judgment
Cards and PAN cards in the name of the victim Gaurav Narula and himself,
had opened bank accounts using fake IDs and used the same to fraudulently
transfer the plot of Gaurav Narula in his name and sold the same further. He
disclosed that he was supposed to receive an amount of Rs.10 crores in the
deal. An amount of Rs.7.30 crores was paid by the purchaser Anand
Aggarwal and out of the same, he had received share of Rs.60-62 lakhs. The
above named Varun Jain and Bakhshish were nominated as additional
accused. Subsequently, some other accused were nominated. Investigation
qua the petitioner now stands completed.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He is not required for further
investigation. He is not beneficiary of the alleged transactions. The chain of
persons who actually arranged the impersonation, forged identities,
facilitated registration and dealt with the alleged proceeds, is yet to be
traced. The money deposited in his account has been transferred to multiple
accounts/entities. The bank entries by themselves do not determine his
culpability at this stage. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. The
disclosure statement allegedly suffered by him cannot be considered to be
admissible in evidence. The charges are yet to be framed and, therefore,
there are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future. He is in custody for
a period of more than eight months. No useful purpose would be served by
his further incarceration. The main accused are yet to be arrested. It is also
argued that infact, it was the absconding co-accused Varun Jain who is the
authenticity of this order /judgment
mastermind of the crime and who had taken the major part of the money
transferred in the bank account of the petitioner. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
authorities cited as Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 898;
Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. C.B.I. and another, 2012(1) RCR
(Criminal) 870; Ashok Dhingra v. N.C.T. of Delhi, 2001 SCC (Cri) 641;
Vineet Jain v. Union of India, 2025 SCC Online SC 2331; Mohan Singh v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1978 (2) SCC 366; Suresh Kalmadi v. CBI,
2012 (5) RCR (Criminal) 556; Mahesh Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, 2014(8) RCR (Criminal) 1650; Giri Raj v. State of Haryana,
2019(1) RCR (Criminal) 530; Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab and
others, Law Finder Doc Id # 2200202; Surinder Pal Singh v. State of
Punjab, Law Finder Doc Id # 1761887; Mahinder Sharma v. State Tax
Officer, State Tax, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab and others, 2023 (1)
RCR (Criminal) 232; Pawan Kumar and other v. State of Punjab and
others, 2025 NCPHHC 73945; Mohit Singla v. Directorate General of
Goods and Services Tax Intelligence and another, 2026:PHHC:018368. It
is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that
there are serious allegations against the petitioner who is infact the prime
accused and had orchestrated the entire crime in collusion with the other
accused. He not only got prepared false and fabricated documents as to the
identity of the victim Gaurav Narula but also forged his signatures,
authenticity of this order /judgment
photographs and passport etc. and on the basis of the same got registered a
transfer deed by impersonating someone as Gaurav Narula and by showing
himself to be real brother of the victim. Not even this, he sold the property of
victim further to buyer Anand Aggarwal for a sum of Rs.10 crores. An
amount of Rs.7.30 crores was transferred by Anand Aggarwal in the Yes
Bank account of the petitioner which was also got opened on the basis of
false and fabricated documents of identity and address etc. He had
withdrawn the proceeds of crime in cash as well as by buying the property in
the name of his wife. The investigation is still underway qua the co-accused
who are yet to be arrested. The case is at its nascent stage. There are chances
of petitioner's absconding, intimidating the witnesses, causing hindrance in
apprehension of other accused or tampering with evidence, if extended
benefit of bail. His antecedents are also not clean as he is involved in two
other cases. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be
allowed.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner by hatching a conspiracy with the co-accused is
alleged to have got registered a deed of transfer of the property owned by the
victim Gaurav Narula by impersonating someone as the victim and by
claiming himself to be real brother of the victim. An amount of
Rs.7,30,00,000/- was deposited in his bank account. The claim of the
petitioner that it had been given to co-accused Varun Jain and he was the
mastermind of the crime has no basis at this stage. The allegations against
authenticity of this order /judgment
the petitioner are quite serious. The offence under Section 467 of IPC
attracts sentence of life imprisonment. The authorities which have been cited
by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be stated to be applicable to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. More so, it is well
settled proposition of law that the orders qua grant of bail have no
precedential value. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the
observations made in Gajanand Agarwal v. State of Orissa and others,
(2006) 12 SCC 131. Taking into consideration the serious nature of the
accusations as levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which
the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be
extended benefit of bail at this stage. As such, finding no compelling ground
to allow the petition, the same is dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
29.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
