Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Haryana Land Fraud Case

The case of Pratibha Manchanda & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr. is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court that sets a precedent on fraudulent land transactions and anticipatory bail. The Court overturned the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order granting pre-arrest bail to the accused, emphasizing that serious allegations of forgery and fraud require thorough investigation, including custodial interrogation.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around a disputed land transaction in Begampur Khatola, Gurugram, Haryana. The appellants, Pratibha Manchanda and another, claimed that they had been in possession of the land for over 30 years and had never executed any sale deed or power of attorney (GPA) transferring ownership to another party.

On February 28, 2022, the second appellant discovered that an individual named Bhim Singh Rathi had applied for the mutation of their land based on a sale deed dated February 24, 2022. Further inquiries revealed that this transaction was based on a forged GPA dated September 18, 1996, allegedly executed in favor of Respondent No. 2. The appellants denied any knowledge of this GPA and alleged that it was fraudulently created to transfer ownership of their land worth Rs. 50 crores.

Key Legal Issues

Was the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court justified given the serious allegations?
Did the accused have the legal right to claim ownership based on the disputed 1996 GPA?
Did the trial court err in denying bail, and was custodial interrogation necessary?

Petitioner’s (Appellants’) Arguments

The appellants, represented by their counsel, argued:

The 1996 GPA was entirely forged, and they had never executed such a document.
Despite allegedly possessing this GPA, Respondent No. 2 waited 26 years to apply for a certified copy, raising serious doubts about its authenticity.
The sale deed was registered without a PAN number or Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), indicating a clear violation of legal requirements.
The land was undervalued in the fraudulent sale deed at Rs. 6.60 crores, when its actual market value was estimated to be Rs. 50 crores.
The accused colluded with officials from the Sub-Registrar’s office to facilitate the fraudulent transaction.
Custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the full conspiracy and identify all involved parties.

Respondent’s (Accused’s) Arguments

The accused, represented by Senior Counsel, defended the High Court’s order:

The 1996 GPA was duly registered at the Sub-Registrar’s office in Kalkaji, Delhi, and had never been challenged before.
The accused lawfully executed the sale deed based on this GPA.
The appellants’ claims were an afterthought, as they had never objected to the GPA until the sale was completed.
Anticipatory bail was granted subject to stringent conditions, including providing specimen signatures for verification.
The accused had fully cooperated with the investigation, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Supreme Court’s Observations

On the Validity of the 1996 GPA

The Supreme Court found serious irregularities in the accused’s claims:

“There is no explanation as to why the accused waited 26 years to apply for a certified copy of the GPA. This casts serious doubt on its authenticity.”

It also noted:

“The alleged GPA, despite granting full ownership rights, was never used to claim mutation or ownership in revenue records for over two decades.”

On the Fraudulent Sale Deed

The Court ruled that the alleged sale deed contained multiple deficiencies:

No PAN number was mentioned.
No TDS deduction was made, despite legal requirements.
The Sub-Registrar’s office accepted the transaction without proper verification.

It observed:

“A person cannot pay crores of rupees without verifying ownership documents. The absence of due diligence raises concerns about the legitimacy of this transaction.”

On Custodial Interrogation

The Court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation, stating:

“Given the gravity of the allegations and the high-value property involved, custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy.”

The Court cited previous judgments, including Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011), which established that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases of serious fraud and organized crime.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. The ruling directed:

The immediate arrest of Respondent No. 2 for custodial interrogation.
The formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) to probe the case.
The investigation to be completed within two months.
The Sub-Registrar and revenue officials involved to be scrutinized.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching consequences:

Fraudulent Property Transactions: Strengthens legal scrutiny of property transactions involving old GPAs.
Ensuring Due Diligence: Emphasizes the need for buyers and officials to verify ownership before executing property deals.
Protecting Senior Citizens and NRIs: Safeguards vulnerable landowners from fraudulent claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana reinforces the importance of due diligence in property transactions and strengthens protections against fraudulent land transfers. The ruling ensures that all aspects of the case, including the role of officials in the Sub-Registrar’s office, are thoroughly investigated to prevent similar scams in the future.

Petitioner Name: Pratibha Manchanda & Anr..
Respondent Name: State of Haryana & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Surya Kant, Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Place Of Incident: Begampur Khatola, Gurugram, Haryana.
Judgment Date: 06-07-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: pratibha-manchanda-&-vs-state-of-haryana-&-a-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-06-07-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category