Rupinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 212/5 CRM-M-20709-2025 Date of decision: May 8th, 2025 Rupinder Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.17 dated 10.03.2025 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7-A of The Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.

2.

While issuing notice of motion on 22.04.2025, following submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that no doubt, the petitioner was serving in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate as a Clerk, however, the only allegation levelled against the petitioner was that he had processed the ownership transfer of vehicle No.PB 13 AR 4907 through the Parivahan Sewa Portal. Learned counsel has argued that the alleged incident took place way back in the year 2017; the complaint was made in the year 2019, yet the FIR was lodged only in the year 2025 after PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-20709-2025 -2unexplainable delay of 8 years.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents were duly verified as stands reflected in Annexure P-2 and the transfer was effected in line with the instructions of the State Transport Commissioner (Annexures P-3 and P-4), which permitted faceless services."

3.

Thereafter, vide order dated 01.05.2025, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 01.05.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 5.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, 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.

6.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 01.05.2025 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

May 8th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.08 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh