A local court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Gaganpreet Singh, 27, an accused in the alleged illegal sale of 17.55 acres of Pearl Group land worth ₹7.87 crore, holding that the case involves a serious economic offence requiring a thorough and unhindered investigation.A local court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Gaganpreet Singh, 27, an accused in the alleged illegal sale of 17.55 acres of Pearl Group land worth ₹7.87 crore, holding that the case involves a serious economic offence requiring a thorough and unhindered investigation. (Getty Images/iStockphoto/ Representational image)The case pertains to an FIR registered by the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Panchkula, on June 2, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). According to the prosecution, the land belonged to the Pearl Group (PGF/PACL) and had been attached under directions of the Supreme Court to facilitate refunds to thousands of investors. Restraint orders prohibiting the sale or transfer of the land had been duly entered in the revenue records in 2016 and 2019.The prosecution alleged that Gaganpreet Singh, in conspiracy with revenue officials and others, got the restraint entries removed from the revenue records through manipulated proceedings in December 2025. On the same day the attachment was removed, inheritance mutations were sanctioned and powers of attorney executed, followed by the registration of two sale deeds on December 19, 2025, through which 17.55 acres of attached land were allegedly sold for about ₹7.87 crore, despite the subsisting Supreme Court orders.The petitioner argued that he was merely a part-time driver who acted on the assurances of revenue officials, had no knowledge of the attachment orders and did not retain the sale proceeds. However, the court observed that the sequence of events prima facie reflected a well-planned conspiracy to circumvent the Supreme Court’s directions and that the petitioner’s defence could only be examined during trial.Rejecting the plea, the court held that the investigation was at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation could be necessary to trace the money trail, identify the beneficiaries and unearth the larger conspiracy. The court ruled that the gravity of the allegations did not justify granting the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.