Inderjit Alias Laddi Sandhu v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 01.04.2025 Inderjit @ Laddi Sandhu . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

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

Mr. V.K. Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

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

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner (s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Inderjit @ Laddi Sandhu 27.01.2023 420, 465, 467, 468, Civil Lines Bathinda 471 of IPC 2.

On 28.01.2025, following order was passed:- "1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, for grant of anticipatory bail, in case bearing FIR No.18, dated 27.01.2023, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Bathinda.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as an employee in the office of Amarjit Singh @ Amarjeet Singh (co-accused), who has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. Though, the co-accused Amarjit Singh @ Amarjeet Singh has attempted to shift the allegation upon the present petitioner, by giving his statement that an amount of Rs.2 lacs was credited to his bank account which was further transferred to the account of the mother of Laddi Sandhu (petitioner herein). In fact, there has been no amount credited to account of the petitioner or his other family members, paid by the complainant.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner refers to the inquiry report submitted by the DSP, Fazilka to the office of SSP, Fazilka, wherein it is noticed that the complainant - Sandeep Kumar is partner of one Harjinder Singh, and has opened an office at Power House Road, Bathinda, in the name of Sai Immigration.

- 2 - 4.

Thus, counsel for the petitioner develops his arguments by submitting that in fact, complainant himself is in the same business and because of some financial disputes, a false complaint has been lodged after concocting the version.

5.

Counsel for the petitioner also produces the copy of the order dated 14.01.2025 passed in CRM-M-11982-2024 and submits that Amarjit Singh @ Amarjeet Singh (co-accused) has already been granted concession of anticipatory bail, and in case, arrest of the petitioner is protected, he undertakes to join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 6.

Notice of motion.

7.

On advance notice, Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab puts an appearance on behalf of the respondent/State. 8.

List again on 01.04.2025, to enable learned State counsel to file status report in the matter.

9.

Let the status report be filed in regard to the money transactions of the complainant with the petitioner and with other persons, also. Learned State counsel would also clarify, if complainant namely Sandeep Kumar is also in the same business, or not.

10.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

11.

Besides, petitioner would submit/surrender his passport before the Arresting Officer and an undertaking on oath that in case of leaving the country, he would seek prior permission from the Investigating Agency/concerned Court."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance to the order dated 28.01.2025, petitioner has already joined investigation and fully cooperated with the investigating agency. Also submits that main accused i.e. Amarjit Singh @ Amarjeet Singh, has already been granted concession of bail by this Court.

Learned counsel further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not serve any purpose to the prosecution and therefore, seeks confirmation of the interim bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that though petitioner has joined investigation, but he is not disclosing the particulars of the other accused.

5.

Heard.

6.

Main accused - Amarjit Singh @ Amarjeet Singh, has already

- 3 - been granted concession of anticipatory bail, and prime investigation was to be conducted qua him only. As per the stand taken by the petitioner, he is just an employee and the complete business was handled by the main accused - Amarjit Singh @ Amarjeet Singh.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments addressed by both sides, and also keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, he should not be subjected to the custodial interrogation. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the ad-interim order dated 28.01.2025, is hereby made absolute.

However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

7.

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. 8.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 01, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No