Amritpal Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-51443-2024 Date of decision: January 21st, 2025 Amritpal Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Ankit Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.186 dated 20.07.2024 under Sections 454, 380, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Jandiala, Amritsar Rural.

2.

Vide order dated 04.11.2024, the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being falsely implicated in a case i.e. essentially civil in nature but is being portrayed as a criminal matter. It is argued that both, the complainant and the police are acting in concert to falsely implicate the petitioner. Learned counsel has highlighted that the complainant's power of attorney holder has already filed a civil suit against the bank officials for the recovery of the amount in question.

It is further contended that although the complainant PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.01.21 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-51443-2024 -2allegedly became aware of the supposed fraud in March 2023, he strangely failed to even intimate the bank about it; in fact, as per the inquiry, withdrawals were still being made as late as 2024. Consequently, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be required in the instant case." 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 04.11.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Surender Singh, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation. 5.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 04.11.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

January 21st, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.01.21 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh