Varun Kapoor v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.235(2) Case No. : CRM-M-42209-2025 Decided On : September 25, 2025 Varun Kapoor ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab ....

Respondent CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * * Present :

Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

:

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.49 dated 30.03.2025, under Sections 308(2), 62, 351(2)(3), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (offence under Section 111 BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Maqboolpura, District Amritsar.

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant namely Jujhar Singh, who was Head Ragi in Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar, made complaint against the petitioner, alleging that on 28.03.2025, at about 11:35 AM, he received a phone call from petitioner Varun Kapoor, who introduced himself as President of Shiv Sena. He spoke to the complainant in a bad language and accused him of sexually abusing and molesting women. The petitioner also threatened the complainant to hold a press conference in this

regard and tarnish his image. He further informed the complainant that he had talked to the President and Secretary of Shiromani Committee namely Vijay Singh in this regard. The complainant then contacted Vijay Singh, who told him that he knew Varun Kapoor and that he and his wife were known for harassing people in this manner. To help the complainant, Vijay Singh accompanied him to the house of the petitioner, where Varun Kapoor, his wife and one girl namely Pooja were present. The petitioner then told them that Pooja had complained against the complainant. Even after discussion, petitioner Varun Kapoor did not pacify and threatened the complainant either to pay Rs.10 lakh to Pooja, or to be ready for getting his image tarnished through press conference, to be held by the petitioner.

Even Secretary Vijay Singh repeatedly requested the petitioner not to indulge in such type of conduct, but the petitioner forced him to persuade the complainant to give money to Pooja to settle the matter. On the basis of these allegations of blackmailing and mental harassment, the FIR in question was registered.

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the allegations against the petitioner are politically motivated and there is no cogent evidence to support these allegations. No press conference had ever taken place. No money was ever paid by the complainant. Even Secretary Vijay Singh had sworn affidavit deposing that no such incident of blackmailing had ever taken place involving the petitioner. Learned counsel further stated that co-accused Kuldeep Kaur (wife of the petitioner) has already been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 19.05.2025, passed in CRM-M-25014-2025. The petitioner is in custody

since 01.04.2025 and has already undergone custody period of 05 months and 23 days. He further urged that trial of the case is likely to take time. Therefore, the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposed the bail petition while contending that some other cases are also pending against the petitioner and he is a habitual offender and does not deserve the concession of bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.

As per the allegations, the petitioner attempted to blackmail the complainant Jujhar Singh by threatening to publicize a false sexual harassment complaint through press conference. Nothing has been brought on record to show that any such press conference ever took place or money was exchanged. The co-accused Kuldeep Kaur had already been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 19.05.2025, passed in CRM-M-25014-2025. The complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial. As per the Custody Certificate dated 24.09.2025, which has been placed on record, the petitioner has already undergone custody of 05 months and 23 days. As per the Status Report, Challan in this case has already been presented and charges are yet to be framed. Thus, conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief

Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

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. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.

September 25, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.