Tilak Raj Bedi v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2581-2025 Date of decision: May 23rd, 2025 Tilak Raj Bedi .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Yashpal Marken, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner in this (second) petition is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.96 dated 28.10.2016 under Sections 406/420 of the IPC (Sections 465/467/468/471/379 of the IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana. 2.

Vide order dated 28.02.2025, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned State counsel has not disputed the following submissions made on the last date of hearing by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

"On a pointed query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how a second petition for anticipatory bail was maintainable, he has submitted that earlier an FIR had been lodged against the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner had been extended the concession of interim bail vide order dated 21.11.2016 in CRM-M-41350-2016, however, since a cancellation report had been prepared, the earlier petition was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. It has been contended by the learned counsel that after PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.23 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-2581-2025 -2almost nine years a DDR on the same set of allegations has been recorded against the petitioner and hence, he has a genuine apprehension that he could be arrested in the present case."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 28.02.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Hardeep Singh, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation. 5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 28.02.2025, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

May 23rd, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.23 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh