Gurdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.07.2025 Gurdeep Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:

Mr. Varinder Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the complainant. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1.

Relief sought The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.12 dated 17.03.2025 under Sections 406,420,120-B IPC registered at P.S Handesra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2.

Contention On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was the complainant-Ajaib Singh, who fraudulently obtained the petitioner's thumb impressions on several blank papers and that no actual payment or consideration was ever received by the petitioner. The dispute is of civil nature and a civil suit in this respect is also pending consideration.

On behalf of State On the other hand, learned State counsel prays for denial of the concession of bail by submitting that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the amount to the tune of Rs.3,15,09,000/- which can be effected only in the police investigation.

3.

Analysis Be that as it may, considering that present case revolves around documentary evidence and civil suit is pending before the court below against the complainant, hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this stage as nothing is to be recovered from him. 5.

Relief In the light of above, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to him joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction for the reason that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required as it would be of no fruitful purpose to put the petitioner behind the bars.

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.' However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within a period of one week and comply with the aforesaid condition under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stands cancelled. In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands allowed. ( SANDEEP MOUDGIL ) JUDGE 09.07.2025 manoj Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No