Harsimranjit Singh Bindra v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61497-2024 Date of decision: April 29th, 2025 Harsimranjit Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, 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.50 dated 06.11.2024 under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Range, Amritsar.

2.

While issuing notice of motion on 09.12.2024, 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, inter alia, contends that a perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR reveals that no bribe was demanded by the petitioner; the petitioner, who is working as a Clerk in the office of District Election Office, had already cleared the file of the complainant much prior to the alleged demand and hence, there was no occasion for the petitioner to demand bribe."

3.

On the last date of hearing, following order was passed: "At the outset, learned State counsel submits that although, there has been compliance of order dated 09.12.2024 and the PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.04.29 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-61497-2024 -2petitioner has indeed joined investigation, however, the petitioner has refused to hand over his mobile handset.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one last opportunity to join investigation once again and hand over his mobile handset to the investigating agency.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has submitted that although the challan stands presented against the petitioner, however, supplementary challan would be presented after the petitioner hands over his mobile handset, which, as per learned State counsel is required as there is a likelihood that some incriminating material may be traced from his mobile handset. In the circumstances, petitioner is once again directed to join investigation as and when called by the investigating agency and cooperate with the investigation."

4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has submitted that the petitioner has complied with the order dated 17.03.2025 as he has handed over his mobile handset to 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 09.12.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

April 29th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.04.29 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh