4 min readChandigarhUpdated: Jun 15, 2026 07:14 PM IST
The Supreme Court has denied the anticipatory bail to Haryana’s absconding land acquisition officer Joginder Sharma who is wanted by the state police in connection with a multi-crore corruption case.
Sharma is accused of being a key conspirator in facilitating illegal sale of a land worth crores allegedly linked to the Pearl Group that was subject to restrictions and could not be transferred without approval from court-appointed Justice RM Lodha Committee overseeing investor recovery. Investigators allege that Sharma, a senior revenue official who was aware of those restrictions from earlier correspondence with the Justice RM Lodha Committee, conspired with revenue officials and private individuals to get a “red-ink stay entry removed from revenue records”, enabling the land’s sale.
The investigators have alleged that the land was first transferred to Sharma’s cousin Naveen and that substantial transaction-related funds moved through a real-estate firm owned by Sharma’s brother, suggesting that his relatives benefited from the deal. Witness statements, audio recordings, call records, and the financial trail are cited by investigators as evidence that Sharma helped coordinate the transactions, influenced purchasers, and played a central role in the scheme.
Sharma, however, had denied the allegations and argued that he was not named in the original FIR, had no role in removing the revenue restriction, and was implicated merely because his relatives were involved in later transactions.
On June 11, 2026, the Supreme Court’s division bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul S Chandurkar dismissed Sharma’s anticipatory bail application. The Supreme Court, in it’s order, mentioned that “Upon hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition. However, as and when the petitioner is sought to be arrested by the concerned police, the grounds of arrest should be properly mentioned and served upon the petitioner and/or his family members”. It added, “In view of the above, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed”.
On May 26, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court too had dismissed Sharma’s anticipatory bail application. While dismissing Sharma’s anticipatory bail application along with that of co-accused Baldev Kaur, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed that the allegations disclosed a larger and organized conspiracy involving manipulation of revenue records, questionable land transactions, and alleged abuse of official position.
What is the case?
The case pertains to approximately 141 kanals of land in Shahpur village in Raipur Rani, Panchkula, that formed part of a larger tract connected to entities associated with the Pearl Group. The land was subjected to restrictions following proceedings arising from investigations into PGF Ltd. and PACL Ltd., companies that were at the centre of one of India’s one of the largest investor-fund controversies. The HC noted that multiple communications from the CBI, the Justice RM Lodha Committee, and public notices issued by SEBI had repeatedly directed that properties linked to PGF/PACL and associated entities could not be sold without prior approval from the designated committees established under SC supervision.
Story continues below this ad
Family links and financial trail
The prosecution alleged that shortly after the removal of the restriction, Baldev Kaur sold the land to Naveen, who is stated to be Sharma’s cousin. Investigators added that substantial payments connected with the transaction flowed through Devine Realtors, a proprietorship firm owned by Sharma’s brother, Dinesh Sharma. The HC noted that money had allegedly begun moving even before the formal application seeking removal of the stay entry was submitted. Investigation revealed that Baldev sold the land for Rs 1 crore but ultimately retained only about Rs 60 lakh after transferring part of the amount back to Devine Realtors. The property was subsequently sold onward for significantly higher sums through a series of transactions involving multiple purchasers. The prosecution argued that the timing of payments and the involvement of Sharma’s relatives indicated prior planning and coordination among the accused persons.
