Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 16.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Bhupinder Singla, Director of Robus Landcorp Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent State of Punjab. Complaint filed by Ashok Kumar Loomba against Rosy Singla (Promoter & MD of M/s Roselyn Square), Bhupinder Singla, Rakesh Kataria, Sumit Sharma and the promoting company.
  • FIR Details: FIR No. 228 dated 04.05.2026 registered at Police Station Zirakpur, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338 and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to IPC Sections 120‑B, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468).
  • Allegations: Conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust, and fraud in the commercial real‑estate project “Roselyn Square”. Investors were promised 15% per annum assured returns payable quarterly and lease rent of ₹100 per sq ft after possession, with delivery of fully furnished units by 01.01.2024.
  • Investments: Complainant and co‑investor Anil Kumar Syal invested ₹1,19,00,000 for Unit 121 and ₹2,12,50,000 each for Units 123 and 124, plus GST of ₹8,38,870, totaling approximately ₹5.44 crore.
  • Outstanding Returns (as of June 2025): ₹31,23,750 for Unit 121, ₹56,63,806 for Unit 123, and ₹55,78,125 for Unit 124, aggregating ₹1,43,65,681.
  • Additional Claims: Sale consideration allegedly inflated, with nominal agreement value of ₹55 lakhs per unit and the balance settled off‑record; project allegedly incomplete, partial Completion Certificate dated 21.07.2023 misrepresented as final; common areas allegedly alienated; illegal commercialization of parking spaces.
  • Petitioner’s Defence: Claims the dispute is civil/commercial; asserts only ₹1.53 crore received through banking channels, with ₹55 lakhs still recoverable; argues he has cooperated with investigation and that bail is the rule, jail the exception.
  • State’s Counter: Emphasizes seriousness of alleged fraud, co‑accused Rosy Singla absconding, risk of petitioner absconding, and that the case involves more than mere delayed possession.

Final Outcome

  • The Court, after hearing counsel, held that the petitioner is not entitled to regular bail at this stage due to the gravity of allegations, the absconding co‑accused, and risk of evidence tampering.
  • The bail petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
  • All pending miscellaneous applications arising from or ancillary to these proceedings are also disposed of as infructuous.

Topics: Criminal Bail, Real Estate Fraud