Amarjit Thind v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23151-2026 Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 AMARJIT THIND

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ****

Present:

Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (ORAL) 1.

The instant petition has been filed und er Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, 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 Amarjit Thind 22.01.20 S. 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and S. 308(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338, 339, 340 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (Section 384, 465, 468, 466, 467, 474, 470, 120-B of IPC) Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar Jalandhar 2.

As per the allegations in the FIR, an enquiry into the complaint was conducted based on a representation submitted by Muhammad Saleem seeking action against Chirag Lakhotra (Block Officer), Tejinderpal Singh

CRM-M-23151-2026 -2- (Guard) and Shamsher Singh (Daily Wager) of the Forest Department, Nawanshahr.

3.

The complainant provided an audio recording along with certain documentary evidence, which revealed that the suspects, namely Narinder Singh (Range Officer), Chirag Lakhotra (Block Officer), Tejinderpal Singh (Guard) and Shamsher Singh (Daily Wager), had seized three vehicles (one tipper, one JCB and one motorcycle) belonging to the complainantMuhammad Saleem, as he was allegedly engaged in illegal mining on the land of the Forest Department during the intervening night of 28/29.06.2025 at about 2:00 A.M. It is alleged that to avoid any action against the complainant, a bribe of Rs.1,50,000/- was demanded. Subsequently, at the instance of the suspects the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, out of which Rs.65,000/- was transferred through UPI to the account of the petitioner-Amarjit Thind and Rs.45,000/- was paid in cash. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, in fact, the complainant has since submitted an affidavit stating due to a misunderstanding. It is further submitted that, as per the allegations, petitioner was neither present at the spot nor in the vicinity at the relevant time. It is also submitted that petitioner is admittedly a tea vendor. He further submits that at the instance of the aforementioned suspects, the amount was directly transferred to the UPI account of the petitioner without taking him into confidence or knowledge regarding the purpose for which the said amount had been credited to his account. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the essential ingredient of mens rea or conscious receipt of the amount for any unlawful purpose is

CRM-M-23151-2026 -3completely absent qua the petitioner. Furthermore, petitioner is already in judicial custody since 23.01.2026.

5.

Learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 30.06.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 05 months and 07 days period inside jail. Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the offence committed by the applicant is serious in nature and the offence of corruption is against the whole society. However, he is unable to contradict the contentions of the petitioner.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, undisputedly, the petitioner is a tea vendor. He was neither present at the spot when the vehicles were seized from the alleged mining site, nor is there any allegation that he ever demanded any bribe from the complainant. Thus, the issue regarding his involvement in the alleged crime is a matter which requires to be ascertained by the trial Court, by taking into consideration cogent evidence during the course of trial.

7.

Petitioner is in custody for the period of last 05 months and 07 days. Investigation, qua the petitioner, stands completed and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody for an indefinite period. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed.

CRM-M-23151-2026 -4Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

8.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

9.

The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.

10.

It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

11.

Petition stands disposed of.

Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 01, 2026 Nisha-1 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No