Punjab and Haryana HC Denies Bail to Advocate Accused of Manipulating Court Proceedings to Aid Land-Grab Conspiracy Against Trust

Justice Manisha Batra found prima facie evidence that the petitioner-advocate shifted court forums, summoned irrelevant witnesses, and manipulated bank officials to legalise forged documents targeting a Delhi-based trust's 32-bigha land holding.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has refused regular bail to Vikas Kumar, a practising advocate, who was sought to be released in two CBI cases arising from an alleged conspiracy to seize 32 bighas of land belonging to Guru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust, Daryaganj, New Delhi. Justice Manisha Batra, sitting singly, held on 27 July 2026 that the allegations “prima facie make out a case of formation of an organized criminal network” and that the petitioner, being an advocate, was presumed to be well aware of the consequences of manipulating legal proceedings. The bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was dismissed after the Special Judge, CBI Court, SAS Nagar (Mohali) had already rejected it on 31 October 2025.

The Land, the Fake Trust, and Two FIRs

The dispute traces back to 32 bighas of land at Zirakpur Patiala Road, which the complainant Trust — Guru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust — claimed to have purchased in 1986 and to have been in continuous possession of thereafter.

FIR No. 133, dated 10 March 2022, was lodged at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) by Harjit Singh, the Trust's manager, under Sections 452, 323, 506, 427, 120B, 148 and 149 of the IPC. The FIR alleged that accused persons Sanjeev Kumar Gatha, Rajesh Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumar and Sarabjit Singh had created a separate trust with a name similar to that of the complainant Trust, fabricated documents, and then on 10 March 2022, Rajesh Kumar Gabba along with 10–12 armed accomplices forced their way into the land, assaulted security guards, damaged their phones and CCTV cameras, and threatened the guards to enable an illegal takeover.

A separate FIR No. 303, dated 4 October 2023, was registered at Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. It was based on a complaint by Inder Deep, alleging that the same group of accused had created and utilised forged documents to claim ownership and possession of the Trust's land.

Both FIRs were initially investigated by a Special Investigation Team. Following directions issued by this Court on 18 October 2023 in CRM-M-6340-2023, the CBI took over the investigation and re-registered the cases as RC No. 0512023S00012 (RC-12) and RC No. 0512023S00013 (RC-13).

Role Attributed to the Petitioner-Advocate

Vikas Kumar was not named in either of the original FIRs. His alleged involvement emerged during the CBI's investigation into how the accused group attempted to use civil litigation to consolidate their claim over the land.

The CBI found that the accused — including Sanjeev Kumar Gaba, Rajinder Kumar and Sarabjit Singh — had filed a civil suit through Vikas Kumar, who appeared as their advocate before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in that suit was dismissed on 4 April 2022 and strictures were passed against the accused persons by the Dera Bassi court.

According to the CBI, after that setback, the petitioner connived with co-accused persons to shift the adjudication from Dera Bassi to Bathinda, a court where he regularly practised. The strategy allegedly involved summoning records related to the disputed Trust property and witnesses in four entirely different and unrelated matters — cases in which the petitioner was appearing for one or another party — so that witnesses connected to the complainant Trust could be examined without the knowledge or consent of the actual parties to those unrelated proceedings.

The investigation further revealed that the petitioner had summoned officials from the complainant Trust's banker and officials from other departments to secure testimony favourable to the accused. He is also alleged to have filed two complaints in the names of co-accused persons against the Trust's manager to pressure him.

A significant piece of material was a recorded conversation provided by one Prabhdeep Singh. Prabhdeep Singh stated that he had never applied to summon the Trust's record or witnesses, and that the petitioner had obtained his signatures on such applications fraudulently. In the recorded conversation, the petitioner allegedly admitted to wrongfully summoning documents and witnesses and asked Prabhdeep Singh not to cooperate with the CBI investigation.

The CBI also found that the petitioner colluded with co-accused Neeraj Kumar Singhal and Paramveer Singh, bankers of the complainant Trust, to get false statements recorded. Separately, he is alleged to have colluded with co-accused Kavita, who had filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, to summon witnesses in those proceedings and extract records belonging to the complainant Trust.

After completing its investigation, the CBI filed a composite charge-sheet in both RC-12 and RC-13 before the Trial Court, which summoned the petitioner. He surrendered on 15 July 2025.

Arguments Before the High Court

Senior Advocate Gaurav Chopra, appearing with Mr. Rohit Kumar and Mr. Vikram Vir Sharda for the petitioner, advanced several grounds in support of bail. The petitioner was not named in FIR No. 133 or FIR No. 303. His custody was never sought during the investigation. No recovery was effected from him. The forged documents were allegedly created before March 2022, at which point he had no connection with the co-accused, making it impossible for him to have been part of any conspiracy to forge those documents. The civil proceedings regarding ownership of the land between the complainant Trust and the alleged fake Trust remained pending, and there was no revenue record establishing the complainant Trust's ownership. The petitioner was simply an advocate representing a client.

On the question of prolonged incarceration, the petitioner pointed out that he had been in custody since 25 July 2025 and that only 2 out of 145 prosecution witnesses had been examined, making an early conclusion of trial unlikely. He had a permanent abode and was not a flight risk.

Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, and Senior Advocate P.S. Ahluwalia with Ms. Keerat Dhillon for the complainant opposed bail. They argued that the petitioner's role went well beyond that of a lawyer filing papers: he had actively engineered the shift of forum, manipulated bank witnesses, filed false complaints to pressure the Trust's manager, and attempted to dissuade a material witness from cooperating with the CBI. They contended that the antecedents of the petitioner were not clean and that there was a real risk of witness tampering and evidence interference if he were released.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Manisha Batra accepted the prosecution's characterisation of the petitioner's conduct. The court observed that the allegations prima facie establish an organised criminal network aimed at seizing the complainant Trust's land. The petitioner's actions were not those of an advocate performing routine professional duties; rather, he had allegedly deployed his familiarity with multiple sets of proceedings to summon Trust-related records and witnesses into entirely unrelated cases, without the knowledge of the actual parties, to manufacture a favourable evidentiary record.

The court placed weight on the recorded conversation in which the petitioner allegedly admitted to wrongfully summoning documents and then urged Prabhdeep Singh not to cooperate with the CBI — conduct the court found consistent with the broader pattern of witness manipulation alleged against him.

On the advocate's professional status, the court observed that “being an Advocate by profession, he is presumed to be well-aware about the consequences of the actions done by him” in manipulating legal proceedings to influence judicial outcomes to the detriment of the complainant Trust. This observation cut against, rather than in favour of, the bail claim: knowledge of procedural mechanics made the alleged conduct more culpable, not less.

The court weighed the nature of the offences, the active role attributed to the petitioner, and the attendant facts and circumstances before concluding that no compelling ground existed to allow the petition. The risk of witness tampering flagged by the prosecution, given the stage of trial — with 143 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined — was a factor the court took into account.

The court added the standard caveat that all observations were confined to the bail petition and would have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

Outcome

CRM-M-64309-2025 was dismissed. The petitioner, Vikas Kumar, remains in custody. Any pending applications in the matter were rendered infructuous consequent to the dismissal of the main petition. The Trial Court proceedings before the Special Judge, CBI Court, Punjab, SAS Nagar (Mohali) continue in RC-12 and RC-13.