Sukhwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 19.03.2026 SUKHWINDER SINGH .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Bhupinder Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.83, dated 13.06.2025, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 of IPC and 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana.

2.

After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the petitioner, on 25.07.2025, following order was passed:- "2.

Allegations against the petitioner are that in lieu of a deal between the petitioner and the husband of respondent No.2, for an amount of 12,00,000/- for ₹ sending the complainant - Madhu Bala to Canada for the post of care-taker, the husband of respondent No.2, namely Gurwinder Kumar, transferred a sum of Rs.6,06,900/- into the bank account of the petitioner and further paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- after taking a loan.

3.

On the very outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to settle the dispute amicably. Moreover, he is not directly involved in the alleged crime. Thus, prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and seeks some time to respond to the submissions addressed by learned counsel opposite, after seeking instructions. And, in case of necessity, to file status report.

6.

At this stage, Ms. Bhupinder Kaur, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf respondent No.2 (complainant) and files her memo of appearance, which is taken on record. She also undertakes to file her Vakatlanama in the registry in due course of time. 7.

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 (complainant) does not raise any dispute to the proposal of the petitioner's counsel and submits that for amicable settlement of the dispute, matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

8.

Accordingly, parties are directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 11.08.2025, for resolving the dispute amicably. Needless to add that parties shall remain present on each and every date fixed by the said Forum.

9.

For awaiting report, adjourned to 17.09.2025. 10.

Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing."

3.

As per the report dated 16.09.2025 forwarded by Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, dispute between the parties could not be amicably resolved.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant submits that, in fact, no genuine effort was made by the petitioner to settle the matter, as he failed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and did not participate in the proceedings. 5.

This Court has considered the contention raised by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and has also taken note of the allegations

against the petitioner, as recorded in the previous order dated 25.07.2025, whereby arrest of the petitioner was stayed.

However, it appears that petitioner has misused the concession of interim relief granted by this Court, vide order dated 25.07.2025.

6.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 19.03.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No