CHANDIGARH — The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected the regular bail plea of practicing advocate Vikas Kumar, who faces charges brought by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for allegedly conspiring with an organized network to usurp prime real estate belonging to a public charitable trust through procedural manipulation.
Dismissing the bail application in Vikas Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, a single bench presided over by Justice Manisha Batra emphasized that legal practitioners hold a heightened responsibility before the law and cannot claim immunity while intentionally undermining judicial outcomes.
"Being an advocate by profession, he is presumed to be well-aware about the consequences of the actions done by him, by manipulation of the legal proceedings, obviously with intent to influence judicial outcome to the detriment of the complainant-Trust," Justice Batra observed.
Background and CBI Investigation
The case stems from two FIRs originally registered by the Mohali Police between 2022 and 2023, which were subsequently transferred to the CBI following High Court orders in October 2023.
According to the CBI's investigation, the primary accused forged a trust deed and registration certificates dated back to 1980—mimicking the legitimate Guru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust—in an attempt to illegally acquire 32 bighas of prime land in Zirakpur, Punjab, alongside valuable trust properties in Delhi's Daryaganj.
The prosecution alleged that after a civil court in Dera Bassi denied an interim injunction to the fake trust, Advocate Vikas Kumar actively assisted the co-accused in "forum shopping." He allegedly orchestrated shifting the litigation to Bathinda, where he regularly practiced, to better influence court processes.
Furthermore, the CBI presented evidence showing that the petitioner:
- Utilized unrelated court proceedings, including filings under the Domestic Violence Act, to improperly issue summons to bank officials and extract financial records of the genuine trust.
- Procured false testimony and fraudulently obtained signatures on court applications without the knowledge of the litigants.
- Attempted to influence a key witness during the ongoing CBI probe.
Defense vs. Prosecution Arguments
Seeking relief, Senior Advocate Gaurav Chopra, appearing for the petitioner, contended that Kumar was merely acting in his capacity as a legal representative without any personal financial stake or direct involvement in the underlying land dispute. The defense highlighted that Kumar had been in custody since July 2025, was not named in the initial FIRs, had cooperated with investigators, and that no physical recovery remained pending from him.
Conversely, Special Public Prosecutor Ravi Kamal Gupta, representing the CBI, alongside Senior Advocate P.S. Ahluwalia for the complainant trust, strongly opposed bail. The prosecution argued that Kumar played a central role in legitimizing fabricated documents through procedural abuse and warned that his release posed a substantial risk of witness tampering and evidence suppression.
Court’s Ruling
Concurring with the prosecution's submission, the High Court held that the allegations against the lawyer pointed to active involvement in structured, systemic fraud rather than routine legal advocacy.
Finding no compelling grounds to extend the benefit of bail given the nature of the offences and the petitioner's active role in manipulating judicial machinery, the bench formally dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Vikas Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Discription: The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused regular bail to advocate Vikas Kumar in a high-stakes CBI land-grab case involving the Guru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust. Justice Manisha Batra observed that as a legal professional, the petitioner is presumed fully aware of his actions' consequences. The CBI alleged that after an unfavorable order in Dera Bassi, Kumar conspired to shift proceedings to Bathinda, manipulated unrelated litigation to sub-poena financial records, and attempted to influence key witnesses to legitimize forged property documents. Finding prima facie evidence of active participation in organized procedural manipulation, the High Court formally dismissed the bail application.