Komal Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-3602-2025 - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-3602-2025 Decided on : 23.01.2025 Komal Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, in a case arising out of FIR No. 0230, dated 17.12.2022, registered at Police Station Basti Bawa Khel, District Jalandhar. 2.

On advance notice, learned State counsel, puts in appearance and after getting instructions from the concerned Investigating Officer states that an amount of Rs.7.45 lakh, has been credited in the joint account of the petitioner and his wife - Harpreet Kaur. He further submits that in the anticipatory bail filed by the co-accused Kulwinder Singh @ Harry, who, in fact, being the main accused in the case, was initially granted the concession of anticipatory bail by noticing a wrong fact that no amount has been received by him.

JAWALA RAM 2025.01.24 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-3602-2025 - 2 - 3.

It appears that Court was not apprised of the correct position, and therefore, the concession in the form of interim anticipatory bail was granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.04.2024. Subsequently, on the ground of non-joining of the investigation, the petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-2). 4.

Learned State counsel has brought to the notice of the Court that in the joint account of the petitioner and his wife, an amount of Rs.7.45 lakhs, is found to have been credited by the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to provide any satisfactory explanation to the Court as to for what purpose, said amount was credited in the joint account of the petitioner and his wife. 5.

In view thereof, finding no merit in the instant petition, same is hereby dismissed.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE January 23, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2025.01.24 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document