3 min readGurgaonJul 19, 2026 11:11 AM IST
A city court in Gurgaon recently rapped an investigating officer (IO) over the alleged lapses during the probe into a high-stakes real estate dispute in Sushant Lok. The dispute arises from two parties allegedly securing bank loans against the same plot using conflicting documents.
While granting interim anticipatory bail to a 52-year-old woman accused in the case, Additional Sessions Judge Dr Gagan Geet Kaur pulled up the IO. In its order dated July 15, which was uploaded Saturday, the court said that it “is constrained to observe casual and unprofessional conduct on the part of the IO concerned that he did not enquire into original sale deed … from complainant and no enquiry is made about the bank accounts of the seller and purchaser with regard to the transfer of consideration amount.”
The case stems from an FIR registered at the Sushant Lok Police Station on May 19 this year, alleging encroachment and illegal construction on his plot.
The court noted that the matter “does not appear to be a matter of simple case of transfer of the same property,” but rather “is a matter of more serious concern as the loan has been obtained against the same property from two different banks by two persons”.
When prompted by the court to verify the original documents, the IO’s submitted reports revealed that a private bank held the 1993 sale deed, which had been legally deposited by Suman Lata, the accused, in March.
On the other hand, a public sector bank reported that the complainant had secured a loan last July using a certified copy of the 1993 deed, supplemented by a July 2024 police DDR (Daily Diary Register), claiming the original document was lost.
Highlighting discrepancies between the two documents, the court observed that the accused’s copy bore an authentic treasury officer’s seal and date, while the copy submitted by the complainant lacked any such validation.
Story continues below this ad
The certified copy retrieved by the IO from the tehsil office had a barcode instead of a traditional treasury stamp, prompting the Judge to declare, “This discrepancy raises a serious question on the genuineness and authenticity of the sale deed.”
The Judge also questioned why the police did not investigate the alleged role of the registering Tehsildar.
The court noted that the police had violated a prior April order that had mandated that “if the investigating agency on the basis of facts wishes to arrest the accused, it will serve a notice u/s 35(3) BNSS, one week in advance”.
Determining that no custodial interrogation was warranted, given the purely documentary nature of the evidence, the court granted interim bail to the complainant, directing her to formally join the police investigation on June 23.
Stay updated with the latest – Click here to follow us on Instagram
