Gurpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 Gurpreet Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:
Mr. H.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.
***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.05 dated 13.02.2026 registered under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station NRI, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.
2.
Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused, forged the signatures of complainant and misappropriated the amount of her policy upon its maturity. Hence, the present FIR.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the alleged fraud. He argued that the alleged allegation of
-2forgery is against co-accused Dilpreet Singh and not against the petitioner. He further submits that even if the contents of FIR are taken to be true, then also the only offence being made out is under section 336(2) and 340(2) of BNS which is bailable. He contends that the entire evidence in the present case is documentary in nature and is in possession of either the complainant or the investigating agency, hence, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and there is no apprehension that the petitioner would destroy or tamper with any evidence. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays that present petition be allowed.
4.
After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 23.02.2026.
5.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, he has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner along with co-accused have received and misappropriated the amount of old policy of the complainant by forging her signatures on maturity and thereafter the
-3petitioner and co-accused issued new policy with some amount of that maturity amount by forging signatures of the complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner is not only peripheral participant but principal architect of the conspiracy. He along with co-accused orchestrated a wellplanned conspiracy. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to unearth the modus operandi of accused; as well as to ascertain his exact role and to recover the amount involved in the alleged fraud. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is specifically named in the FIR and is alleged to have acted in connivance with the co-accused in misappropriating the maturity amount of the complainant's policy by way of forged signatures. At this stage, the exact role of the petitioner is yet to be ascertained and requires thorough investigation, for which his custodial interrogation is stated to be necessary. The investigation is still in progress and important aspects, including the flow of the alleged cheated amount and the role of each accused, are yet to be examined.
While considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusations against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection to the petitioner, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine the seriousness of the alleged act.
-4the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter.
7.
It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State Vs. Anil Sharma', (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under: "6. We find, force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code.
In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases.
The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
8.
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as "P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24, while
-5dealing with economic offences, has held that the power of anticipatory bail should be sparingly exercised in economic offences. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p.386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty".
Economic Offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, it was held that in economic offences, the accuse is not entitled to anticipatory bail. XXX XXX XXX
83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage
-6of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail".
9.
Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and if it is denied, it will leave many loose ends, which is not desired. Thus, the present petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
10.
It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 24.03.2026 JUDGE Puneet....
Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No