[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Poonam Mahajan vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2026
CRM-M-2204-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
202
CRM-M-2204-2026 (O&M).
Date of decision: 29.04.2026.
POONAM MAHAJAN
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Gaurav Partap S. Pathania, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. J.S. Mahal, Advocate, for the complainant.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail to the
petitioner in case bearing FIR No.35 dated 18.03.2024, under Section(s) 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police
Station Division No.2, District Pathankot.
2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the complaint
submitted by Pawan Kumar, Manager, Capital Small Finance Bank Ltd.,
Branch Dhangu Road, Pathankot. It is alleged that one Kartik Mahajan (son
CRM-M-2204-2026 (O&M) -2-
of the petitioner herein) had applied for a housing loan facility from the said
bank for completion of his house, pursuant to which amounts of Rs.15 lakhs
and Rs.7 lakhs were sanctioned and disbursed on different dates. The said
house was mortgaged with the bank as collateral security and a lien in favour
of the bank was recorded in the revenue record. It is further alleged that the
borrower failed to repay the loan amounts, resulting in substantial outstanding
dues. During this period, it came to the notice of the bank that the accused, in
connivance with the concerned Patwari, had got the lien entry removed from
the revenue record and subsequently transferred the mortgaged property in
favour of his mother (petitioner herein) through a registered transfer deed and
mutation with an intention to cause wrongful gain to himself and wrongful
loss to the bank. Despite repeated notices issued by the bank for repayment of
the outstanding loan amount, the borrower failed to clear the dues. On these
allegations, the complainant sought legal action against the accused, leading
to the registration of the present FIR.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) contends
that no specific allegations have been attributed to the petitioner and that as a
matter of fact, the transfer deed of the property in question had been executed by
her son Kartik Mahajan in her favour on 29.08.2022 and thereafter, an agreement
to sell the said property had been executed by the petitioner with one Manjeet
Singh. It is thus contended that, in the absence of any specific over act, no
element of forgery or fraudulent conduct can be attributed to the petitioner. He
further contends that the loan in question had been availed by Kartik Mahajan
from the Bank by creating an equitable mortgage with respect to the house and
the petitioner was not a beneficiary of the said transaction nor was she involved
in the sanction or disbursement of the loan. It is argued with vehemence that the
CRM-M-2204-2026 (O&M) -3-
said Kartik Mahajan has already been granted the concession of regular bail by
this Court vide order dated 09.02.2026 passed in CRM-M-6386-2026.
4. State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant, on the other
hand, contend that the petitioner has chosen not to give a complete and accurate
narration of the facts before this Court. It is submitted that the role of the
petitioner cannot be viewed in isolation and that her connivance with her son
stands established from the overall sequence of events emerging from the FIR
and the investigation conducted thereafter. It is further contended that the
petitioner has selectively relied upon portions of the FIR and has failed to
advert to the latter part thereof, including the material collected during
investigation, which clearly indicates her involvement. In this regard, reliance
is placed upon the vernacular contents of the FIR to substantiate the said
submission. It is contended that initially, Kartik Mahajan i.e. the son of the
petitioner herein obtained two loans amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs.07 Lakhs
in the year 2020-21, by creating an equitable mortgage with respect to the
property in question. It is further alleged that thereafter, forged documents
were created to falsely depict issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate'/'Non-
Encumbrance Certificate' from the bank, thereby facilitating removal of the
lien/mortgage entry from the revenue record. Immediately thereafter, Kartik
Mahajan, i.e. the son of the petitioner herein executed a registered transfer
deed in favour of the present petitioner, who, in turn, entered into an
agreement to sell the said property for a total consideration of Rs.25 lakhs, out
of which an amount of Rs.11 lakhs was received by her as earnest money. It
is thus contended that the entire transaction cannot be viewed as a standalone
act but has to be examined in its entirety which reveals a well-orchestrated
design to defraud the bank. The sequence of events clearly establishes that the
CRM-M-2204-2026 (O&M) -4-
petitioner herein was actively participating with her son in ensuring smooth
execution of the fraud that was designed to be executed. It is contended that it
is under said circumstances that Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
has also been attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is
submitted that the petitioner cannot take benefit from the grant of bail to
Kartik Mahajan, since the bail granted to him was regular bail and not
anticipatory bail, and the same does not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to
similar relief.
5. I have heard counsel appearing for the respective parties and have
gone through the documents appended along with the present petition.
6. It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that with respect
to the house in question, an agreement of sale had been executed by the
petitioner in favour of Manjeet Singh and that a sum of Rs.11 lakhs had been
received by her as earnest money. It is also not disputed by referring to any
document that the loan availed against the said property had been cleared at
any point in time. In the absence of any material to show repayment, the
financial dealings surrounding the property remain unexplained. The
sequence of events, namely, removal of the mortgage entry, followed by
mutation of the property in favour of the petitioner and thereafter execution
of an agreement to sell, prima facie reflects a concerted course of conduct on
the part of the petitioner with her son. In view thereof, I do not find myself in
agreement with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner was unaware of the nature of entire transactions.
7 Even though it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that
the loan availed from the bank has been cleared, however, despite a specific
CRM-M-2204-2026 (O&M) -5-
query put by this Court asking for any document, on the basis whereof, it may
be established that the entire loan amount already stands cleared, counsel for
the petitioner is not in a position to refer to any such document evidencing
clearance of the outstanding loan amount. In the absence of such proof, the
submission remains a mere bald assertion, devoid of evidentiary support. In
any case, even if such a contention were to be assumed arguendo, the same
does not advance the case of the petitioner. On the contrary, the record reflects
that the bank, on account of the subsisting lien, has already proceeded to
auction the property in question. As a consequence thereof, the complainant,
Manjeet Singh, who had entered into an agreement to purchase the said
property and had paid earnest money, has been left high and dry.
8 It is also informed by the State counsel that statement of Manjeet
Singh as a victim of the petitioner has already been recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. and the same prima facie indicates that he was induced into
entering the agreement to purchase the property in question and was thereby
deceived into parting with a substantial amount as earnest money..
9 Where the parties intended to enter into an agreement to sell in
such a quick succession, under ordinary circumstances there was no occasion
for the son to first transfer the property in favour of his mother only to sell the
same after a short period of time. The sequence of events, when seen in its
entirety, does not appear to be a natural or routine course of conduct, but rather
suggests a premeditated design. The circumstances, prima facie, indicate that
the transfer and subsequent agreement to sell were part of a well-knit plan
executed by the petitioner as well as by her son so as to deceive gullible
persons into parting with their hard earned money. In view of the aforesaid, I
CRM-M-2204-2026 (O&M) -6-
am of the opinion that no exceptional grounds for grant of concession of pre-
arrest bail to the petitioner is made out.
10 Consequently, the present petition seeking grant of pre-arrest bail
is dismissed.
April 29, 2026. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
