Punjab & Haryana HC: Serious Real Estate Fraud Allegations Cannot Be Treated as Mere Civil Dispute Under RERA

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 22.09.2026

Punjab & Haryana HC: Serious Real Estate Fraud Allegations Cannot Be Treated as Mere Civil Dispute Under RERA

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused regular bail to an accused in an alleged real estate fraud concerning the commercial project “Roselyn Square”, holding that the allegations went beyond a simple dispute over delayed possession or non-payment of assured returns and prima facie involved fabrication and alteration of documents, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal dismissed the regular bail petition filed by Bhupinder Singla, while expressly clarifying that the Court was not expressing any final opinion on the merits of the criminal case.

Regular Bail Sought in Roselyn Square Fraud Case

• Bhupinder Singla approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail during trial.
• The proceedings arose from FIR No. 228 dated 4 May 2026, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, for offences under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338 and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The judgment identifies their corresponding IPC provisions as Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 465, 467 and 468.
• The FIR followed a complaint by Ashok Kumar Loomba against several persons associated with the Roselyn Square project, including Bhupinder Singla. The allegations concerned conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust and related financial fraud in connection with investments in the commercial real estate project.

Investors Allegedly Induced by 15% Assured Returns

• According to the prosecution case recorded in the judgment, the complainant and co-investor Anil Kumar Syal were allegedly induced to invest substantial sums in Roselyn Square on the basis of various representations.
• They were allegedly promised assured returns at 15% per annum, payable quarterly in advance until possession, followed by lease rental of ₹100 per square foot of super area after possession.
• The units were also allegedly promised to be delivered in a fully furnished condition by 1 January 2024.
• The judgment records alleged investments of ₹1.19 crore for Unit No. 121 and ₹2.125 crore each for Unit Nos. 123 and 124, besides ₹8,38,870 towards GST, taking the alleged aggregate investment to approximately ₹5.44 crore.

Allegation of ₹1.43 Crore Outstanding Assured Returns

• The complainants alleged that despite receipt of the basic sale consideration, the accused neither executed the requisite Buyer’s Agreement nor delivered possession.
• According to the complaint, assured returns were initially paid but subsequently discontinued. As of June 2025, the alleged outstanding assured returns were stated to be ₹31,23,750 for Unit No. 121, ₹56,63,806 for Unit No. 123 and ₹55,78,125 for Unit No. 124, aggregating to approximately ₹1.43 crore.
• The prosecution further alleged that although the actual sale consideration was substantially higher, agreements reflected a nominal consideration of ₹55 lakh per unit and that the remaining amount was allegedly dealt with through off-record transactions.
• These remained prosecution allegations at the bail stage and were not finally adjudicated by the High Court.

Partial Completion Certificate Allegedly Projected as Final

• The complaint also alleged that the project remained incomplete and that a Partial Completion Certificate dated 21 July 2023 had been projected as though it were a final Completion Certificate.
• There were further allegations regarding alienation of common areas and attempts to commercially exploit or sell parking spaces contrary to applicable statutory provisions and regulatory norms.
• A preliminary inquiry was conducted following the complaint, after which the FIR was registered.

Petitioner: Dispute Is Civil and Commercial in Nature

• Senior Counsel appearing for Bhupinder Singla argued that the dispute arose essentially from a real estate transaction and was civil and commercial in nature, but had been given an unwarranted criminal colour.
• The defence contended that Agreements to Sell had been duly executed and that the complainant himself had failed to pay the complete agreed consideration, with substantial amounts allegedly still outstanding.
• It was also submitted that Roselyn Square was duly registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and possessed statutory approvals, including an Occupancy Certificate dated 21 July 2023.
• The petitioner further claimed that his wife was the promoter/proprietor of the project and that he was merely a Director of M/s Robus Landcorp Pvt. Ltd., without a direct role in the project’s day-to-day management.

Defence Disputed ₹5.44 Crore Investment Claim

• The petitioner also disputed the prosecution’s financial allegations.
• His counsel argued that the claim of an investment of ₹5.44 crore was unsupported by documentary evidence and asserted that only approximately ₹1.53 crore had been received through banking channels, while more than ₹55 lakh allegedly remained recoverable from the complainant.
• It was further argued that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation even before registration of the FIR and supplied relevant documents.
• According to the defence, no further recovery was required, the investigation had substantially progressed and continued incarceration would serve no meaningful investigative purpose. Counsel invoked the general principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”

State: Allegations Reveal Planned Economic Fraud

• The State and the complainant strongly opposed bail.
• They contended that the allegations disclosed a well-planned conspiracy to defraud investors of substantial amounts. The Court was informed that Bhupinder Singla had been arrested on 6 May 2026, while co-accused Rosy Singla remained absconding and was allegedly concealing incriminating documents and proceeds of the alleged offence.
• The prosecution also maintained that the complainant and co-investors had been cheated of approximately ₹5.44 crore, besides an alleged outstanding liability of ₹2,11,65,681 towards assured returns.
• It claimed to possess documentary evidence relating to payments through banking channels as well as alleged cash transactions.

Electronic Chats Allegedly Corroborated Cash Payments

• The prosecution further disputed the petitioner’s reliance upon the project’s completion-related documents.
• It contended that information obtained under the Right to Information Act contradicted the petitioner’s characterization of the relevant Occupancy Certificate and that the No Objection Certificate relied upon by the petitioner had already expired.
• Of particular significance, the High Court noted the prosecution’s case that a substantial portion of the sale consideration had allegedly been received in cash.
• Although the petitioner denied receiving cash payments, the investigating agency claimed to have collected electronic chat communications allegedly acknowledging and corroborating receipt of those amounts. The High Court carefully clarified that the evidentiary value of this material would be examined during trial.

Not a Simple RERA Dispute: High Court

• The High Court rejected, at the bail stage, the attempt to characterize the allegations merely as a civil dispute relating to real estate.
• Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that this was “not a simpliciter case of delayed delivery of possession or non-payment of assured returns by a developer” for which the complainant could simply have invoked the statutory remedy under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
• Instead, the allegations prima facie disclosed serious offences involving fabrication and alteration of documents, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy.
• The ruling is therefore significant in distinguishing between an ordinary builder-buyer dispute capable of being pursued under RERA and allegations containing an additional criminal element such as fraud, forgery or conspiracy.

Absconding Co-Accused Weighed Against Bail

• Another major factor was the status of co-accused Rosy Singla.
• The Court recorded that she had not been apprehended despite repeated efforts by the investigating agency and, according to the prosecution, was absconding while allegedly concealing incriminating documents and proceeds of the offence.
• In these circumstances, the High Court held that if Bhupinder Singla were released at that stage, the possibility of his absconding or otherwise frustrating the course of investigation could not be ruled out.

Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Regular Bail

• Taking into account the gravity and nature of the allegations, stage of investigation, role attributed to the petitioner, abscondence of the co-accused and material collected by the investigating agency, the High Court concluded that no case had been made out for grant of regular bail.
• The petition was accordingly dismissed.
• Crucially, the Court expressly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, so that neither side would be prejudiced during trial. Thus, the order represents a refusal of bail and not a final determination of the petitioner’s guilt.

Key Legal Takeaway

The decision demonstrates that the availability of a remedy under RERA does not, by itself, convert every dispute connected with a real estate project into an exclusively civil or regulatory matter.

Where the allegations prima facie extend beyond delayed possession or assured returns and include matters such as forged or altered documents, fraudulent inducement, alleged cash transactions, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy, criminal proceedings may stand on a different footing from the remedies available under Section 31 of RERA.

At the same time, because the present proceeding concerned regular bail, the High Court did not finally determine whether those allegations were true. Their evidentiary worth and the petitioner’s criminal liability remain matters for investigation and trial.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com