Kamal Kumar Alias Billa v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.212 Case No. : CRM-M-23681-2025 Decided On : July 02, 2025 Kamal Kumar @ Billa ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Ms. Mehak Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Navdeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.63 dated 22.03.2025, under Sections 229, 236, 237, 336(2), 337, 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala.
Briefly, the facts of the case are the aforesaid FIR was registered at the instance of complainant namely Shri Gurmeet Tiwana, who is a Judicial Officer, presently posted as Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, alleging therein that the petitioner appeared in his Court as witness for furnishing bail bonds of accused Sonu and identified the person who impersonated as Mandeep Singh - surety for accused Sonu , thereby committing fraud with the Court. Allegation of using forged documents
while furnishing bail bonds and getting released the accused Sonu was also levelled against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner appeared in the Court as witness for furnishing bail bonds on behalf of accused Sonu as he was known to the accused and his mother and he had been requested by them to appear as a witness for the accused. He was not having any knowledge about impersonation by surety Mandeep Singh. He had appeared as a witness under the bona fide belief and impression that the said person was actually Mandeep Singh. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation and therefore, he be granted concession of anticipatory bail.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the present bail petition and has contended that the petitioner committed fraud with the Court and identified the person impersonating as Mandeep Singh - surety for accused Sonu. So, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the truth and he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.
Heard.
The present case was got registered at the instance of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, on the allegations that the petitioner appeared in his Court as witness for furnishing bail bonds on behalf of accused Sonu and identified the person, who impersonated as Mandeep Singh - surety for accused Sonu and thereby committed fraud, used forged documents and furnished bail bonds to get released the accused person. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations and gravity of
offence, allegedly committed by the petitioner, no ground for anticipatory bail is made out. Otherwise also, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and if the same is denied to the investigating agency, it may create hurdles in the investigation and would prejudice the investigation. Dismissed.
However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. July 02, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.