Gurmej Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.215 Case No. : CRM-M-50058-2025 Decided On : October 27, 2025 Gurmej Singh ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab and another ....
Respondents CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Krishan K. Thakur Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Bajaj, Advocate for respondent no.2 (through Video Conferencing). * * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.306 dated 18.08.2025, under Sections 305, 316(2), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.
The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of complaint made by complainant/respondent no.2 namely Deepansh Bajaj, stating therein that there was a shop, in which there were four partners i.e. complainant's maternal grandfather, his father, one Piara Singh and the petitioner - Gurmej Singh. The petitioner was doing
iron work in that shop. However, it was alleged that the petitioner, under a well-planned conspiracy, sold the said shop to an unknown person and received a large amount for the sale and also removed all his belongings from the shop before handing it over to the purchaser. There was an old safe of complainant's grandfather in the shop, which was stolen and destroyed by the petitioner, without any authority to do so. With the allegations, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR as no facts regarding the selling of the shop in question to some other person had come into picture. The petitioner was simply a tenant in the said shop and had no right to sell the same.
In fact, he had already filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction restraining the complainant party to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the aforesaid shop and the present FIR is a counterblast to the said Civil Suit. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is not required for any interrogation and no recovery is to be effected from him. He is ready to join investigation and prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail petition while contending that there are serious allegations against the petitioner regarding selling of shop in question to some unknown person and also of removing safe of complainant's grandfather. His custodial interrogation is required to recover the stolen articles. So, he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail.
Heard.
As per the allegations in the present FIR, the petitioner had sold the shop in question to some unknown person without the knowledge of the complainant party. These allegations had been denied by the petitioner. He had claimed to be a tenant in the said shop since 1992, which was owned by Mandir Nainu Bhagat and he was doing iron work in the shop. Nothing has been produced on record to show that the petitioner had sold the shop in question to anyone and regarding his committing theft in the said shop. Even the name of the alleged purchaser and the amount of sale consideration had not been disclosed. Civil litigation is already pending between the parties as the petitioner had already filed a Civil Suit for seeking permanent injunction restraining the complainant party from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from the shop in question.
As per the Status Report, the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and no other criminal case was found to be registered against him. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and nothing is to be recovered from him. So, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard.
The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
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.
October 27, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.