scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Thursday, June 24, 2021

Property grab case: Punjab and Haryana HC says no limit to human greed, dismisses liquor baron’s bail plea

Dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of liquor businessman Arvind Singla in the alleged property grab case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said that the investment made by him is for personal aggrandisement as there is no limit to human greed.

By: Express News Service | Chandigarh |
June 8, 2021 4:08:13 am
The counsel for Singla had contended that the petitioner is a leading liquor contractor and had invested money at the behest of a property dealer.

Dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of liquor businessman Arvind Singla in the alleged property grab case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said that the investment made by him is for personal aggrandisement as there is no limit to human greed.

The counsel for Singla had contended that the petitioner is a leading liquor contractor and had invested money at the behest of a property dealer. The allegations of kidnapping, forgery and trespassing do not pertain to the petitioner and, therefore, he is entitled to get anticipatory bail.

However, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal observed, “The petitioner may be a billionaire but the investment made by him in the property does not appear bona fide and is certainly not for nation building or generating employment. It is for personal aggrandizement, as there is no limit to human greed…He is alleged to be the mastermind and instrumental in preparation of fake and forged documents for transfer of the property whereby he had allegedly received a sum of over a crore,” Justice Grewal remarked.

The petitioner’s counsel had argued that the property was purchased by co-accused Khalendera Singh Kadyan, and thereafter, he along with one Sanjiv Mahajan had contacted property dealer Ashok Arora who approached the petitioner to invest in the property. After this, a valid GPA was executed by Rahul Mehta in favour of Kadyan and the petitioner to the extent of 67 per cent and 33 per cent respectively.

UT counsel Ashu Mohan Punchhi argued that the petitioner had connived with the co-accused in the case and an agreement to sell was entered between Rahul Mehta and co-accused Kadyan. Thereafter, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with Kadyan and had invested for purchase of 33 per cent share. Also, the petitioner was the mastermind and had manipulated the records of the estate office in connivance with the other accused. The petitioner himself has received an amount of Rs 1.28 crore,

Hence, Justice Grewal dismissed Singla’s bail plea.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Chandigarh News, download Indian Express App.

  • The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement