Gurpreet Kaur v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.08.2025 Gurpreet Kaur ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present:
Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
(through V.C) 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.0020 dated 28.02.2025 under Sections 318(4), 336(2),336(3),340(2) of BNS, 2023 registered at P.S Civil Lines, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.
3.
Contention On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent as he had no knowledge about the forged document i.e appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. It is the positive case set up before this Court that the petitioner was promised by one Pawandeep Kaur, employee posted in the office of Civil Surgeon, Amritsar that an appointment letter would be made available to her shortly and on that surmise out of her sweet gestures, petitioner paid some amount and said Pawandeep Kaur provide the letter. Petitioner came to know about the
same only after the Civil Surgeon conducted an inquiry and found the letter to be forged, which led to registration of the instant FIR. 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, who opposes the grant of anticipatory bail. He would pray for dismissal of the petition urging that the petitioner is the one who tried to take the benefit of the said letter directly and cannot escape the liability of preparing the forged document in connivance with Pawandeep Kaur. 4.
Analysis Be that as it may, it would not be appropriate for this Court at this stage to go into the question as to whether the petitioner in connivance with Pawandeep Kaur prepared the said forged appointment letter. Otherwise also, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not serve any purpose since the letter on the basis of which investigation is to commence, is already either with the investigating agency or can be collected from the official record of the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar. In the light of this fact, the petitioner cannot be automatically hauled up for custodial interrogation without any justifiable reason.
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. 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 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 22.08.2025 manoj Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No