Jagtar Singh v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M No.5009 of 2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.5009 of 2026 Date of decision : 30.3.2026 Date of uploading : 1.4.2026 Jagtar Singh .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Ramandeep Kaur Brar, Advocate, for Mr. Monty Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.175 dated 19.8.2024 under Sections 420, 120-B, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, registered at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana.
2.
The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant Varinder Singh alongwith his brother owns land measuring 8 acres in village Bir Akhara, Tehsil Jagraon. Share of the complainant in the said land was sold to Manpreet Singh Dhaliwal by Binder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Kamaljit Singh, Parminder Singh, Narinder Kaur and Amandeep Kaur by forging agreement to sell dated 21.8.2023. The said persons also
CRM-M No.5009 of 2026 -2created fake Aadhar card in the name of complainant, impersonated complainant and executed forged agreement to sell and received ₹25 lakhs as security document. The said persons also cheated Ravinder Kaur and received ₹25 lakhs and rupe10 lakhs to get son of Ravinder Kaur married with one of above said persons, namely Amandeep Kaur and to send him abroad after marriage and in this regard Engagement ceremony was also performed. The said persons set up the present petitioner as owner of the land owned by complainant Varinder Singh and received ₹15 lakhs. Thereafter, the above said persons fled away. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 9.12.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as the FIRcomplainant could not achieve his objective of going abroad to his satisfaction. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year and 3 months. Learned counsel has further submitted that the trial emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 28.3.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
5.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
CRM-M No.5009 of 2026 -36. The petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2024 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 9.1.2025 and subsequently filed. Total 27 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is conceded case of the parties before this Court that none has been examined till date as the charges are yet not framed. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.1 As per custody certificate dated 28.3.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 3 months and 18 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 2 more cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in
CRM-M No.5009 of 2026 -4case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.9.2025. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and no substantial progress in trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: "10.
As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:
I.
Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II.
Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for nonprosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.
IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s).
V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently
CRM-M No.5009 of 2026 -5required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed." Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
CRM-M No.5009 of 2026 -6petitioner. 9.
Ordered accordingly.
10.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 30.3.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No