Amandeep Kamboj @ Aman v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: July 14th, 2025 Amandeep Kamboj @ Aman .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai and Mr. Akhil Godara, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No.35 dated 17.03.2016 under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC and Section 8 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala.

2.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.04.2024 for allegedly colluding with co-accused Bachitar Singh and Surinder Kaur (since exonerated by the investigating agency) and cheating the complainant of an amount of ₹44 lakh on the pretext of providing him a Government job. Learned senior counsel has asserted that it is not the case of the complainant that any amount of money was directly handed over to the petitioner, rather as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was working only as a conduit of co-accused Bachitar Singh. Learned senior

-2counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that Bachitar Singh had issued a cheque of ₹40 lakh to the complainant and now after he had been granted pardon under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C., he had been declared an approver. Learned senior counsel has, therefore, asserted that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances more so when all the overt allegations are levelled against co-accused Bachitar Singh, who as already submtited earlier is an approver now, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose; as many as 62 prosecution witnesses have been cited and after the charges were framed not even a single witness out of the 62 cited has been examined. A prayer has, therefore, been made for extending the concession of bail to the petitioner.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, has not disputed, on instructions from ASI Lakhwinder Singh, that the petitioner came to be nominated following a disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Bachitar Singh, who has since turned an approver. It has also not been disputed that challan stands presented and charges also framed against the petitioner. However, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted the concession of bail but had absconded as a result of which, he was declared a proclaimed offender in the year 2020. He could be re-arrested only on 04.04.2024. Learned State counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is facing trial in 48 other cases, wherein also allegations have been levelled against him of duping people on the pretext of providing them Government job. In addition, learned State counsel has drawn the

-3attention of this Court to the averments made in the affidavit, which was filed on an earlier date of hearing.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned subject to the following stringent conditions keeping in view that on an earlier occasion after being extended the concession of bail, the petitioner had absconded: (i) The petitioner 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 investigating agency.

(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing.

(iii) The petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments or cause delay in the proceedings.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the learned trial Court; he shall surrender his passport, if not already surrendered.

(v) The learned trial Court shall insist on furnishing of two heavy local sureties, and may impose any additional condition as it deems fit.

6.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

July 14th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No