The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed a regular bail petition filed by an advocate accused of conniving with co-accused persons to illegally grab 32 bighas of land belonging to the Guru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust by manipulating court proceedings and forum shopping. Justice Manisha Batra rejected the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), holding that the allegations prima facie pointed to the formation of an organized criminal network to influence judicial outcomes.
Background of the Case
The case originates from two separate FIRs registered in SAS Nagar (Mohali), which were subsequently handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following a High Court direction on October 18, 2023. FIR No. 133 was lodged by Harjit Singh, Manager of the Delhi-based Guru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust, alleging that the Trust had purchased 32 bighas of land on the Zirakpur-Patiala Road in 1986. He alleged that Sanjeev Kumar Gatha, Rajesh Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumar, and Sarabjit Singh created a fake trust with a similar name and forged documents to grab the land. On March 10, 2022, armed assailants allegedly trespassed onto the land, assaulted security personnel, and damaged CCTV equipment.
The second matter, FIR No. 303, was registered on a complaint by Inder Deep, alleging that the accused persons utilized forged documents to claim ownership and possession of the Trust’s land. The CBI re-registered both FIRs as RC No. 0512023S00012 and RC No. 0512023S00013.
CBI Investigation and Role of the Petitioner
According to the CBI investigation, the co-accused filed a civil suit in Dera Bassi through the petitioner, a practicing advocate. After the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi, dismissed their interim injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure with strictures against the accused, the petitioner allegedly attempted to shift the adjudication to Bathinda, where he regularly practiced.
The CBI revealed that the petitioner summoned official records and bank witnesses of the genuine Trust across four completely unrelated legal matters—including a domestic violence case—without the knowledge or consent of the actual litigants. One litigant, Prabhdeep Singh, stated that his signatures were obtained fraudulently on applications to summon the Trust’s bank records, and he provided an audio recording in which the petitioner admitted to wrongfully summoning documents and asked him not to cooperate with the CBI probe.
Following a composite charge-sheet filed by the CBI, the petitioner surrendered before the trial court on July 15, 2025. His bail application was dismissed by the Special Judge, CBI Court, SAS Nagar (Mohali), on October 31, 2025.
Arguments Before the High Court
Senior counsel representing the petitioner argued that he had cooperated with the investigation, no recovery was sought or made from him, and he was not named in either initial FIR. It was submitted that the alleged forgery occurred prior to March 2022 when the petitioner had no association with the co-accused, and he was merely representing his client in a professional capacity. Counsel added that the petitioner had been in custody since July 25, 2025, and with only 2 out of 145 prosecution witnesses examined so far, the trial would take considerable time.
Opposing the plea, the Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI and senior counsel for the complainant contended that the advocate played an active role in shifting adjudication from Dera Bassi to Bathinda and colluding with bank officials Neeraj Kumar Singhal and Paramveer Singh to record false statements. They submitted that the petitioner manipulated unrelated proceedings to procure records of the genuine Trust and that his release on bail posed a risk of evidence tampering and witness intimidation.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Examining the material on record, Justice Manisha Batra observed that as a legal professional, the advocate was presumed to be fully aware of the legal consequences of his actions. Key observations made by the bench include:
“The allegations prima facie make out a case of formation of an organized criminal network by the petitioner with the co-accused to grab the land of the complainant-Trust. Being an Advocate by profession, he is presumed to be well-aware about the consequences of the actions done by him, by manipulation of the legal proceedings, obviously with intent to influence judicial outcome to the detriment of the complainant-Trust.”
Taking into account the nature of the offences and the active role attributed to the petitioner, the High Court held that he did not deserve the benefit of regular bail and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Vikas Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No.: CRM-M-64309-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
Date: 27.07.2026
