Gagandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.07.2025 Gagandeep Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present:
Ms. Jasneet Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
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.0100 dated 24.08.2024 under Sections 420,120-B IPC registered at P.S Khilchian, District Amritsar. 2.
Contention On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to being brother of the main accused Sarabjit Singh, who was granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.05.2025 passed by this Court in CRM-M-21415-2025. It has also come on record that whatsoever amount was received either by wife of Parminder Singh or Sarabjit Singh stand returned and there is no evidence to suggest that the petitioner shall benefit directly or indirectly from the alleged transaction of money, which took
place between the co-accused as well as the complainant and this very fact has not been denied during the course of hearing. Petitioner has also given an undertaking to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. Notice of motion.
On behalf of the State On the asking of the Court, Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and prays for denial of the concession of bail by submitting that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain the facts.
3.
Analysis Having perused the contents of the petition including the fact that the main accused Sarabjit Singh has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.05.2025 passed by this Court in CRM-M21415-2025 and in the light of the fact that the alleged transaction of money was between the co-accused and the complainant, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and also the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this stage as nothing is to be recovered from him. 4.
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 10 days 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. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which are reproduced below:- 'When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such
directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(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 ten days 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 11.07.2025 manoj Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No