Gurcharan Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH GURCHARAN SINGH .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT JASWINDER SINGH .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT DECIDED ON:

18.03.2026

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present:

Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate for the petitioners (in both the cases).

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate, for the complainant. SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1.

By this common order, both the aforementioned petitions, i.e. CRM-M-59125-2025 and CRM-M-59886-2025 shall stand disposed of.

2.

Present petitions have been filed by the petitioners, seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.0227, dated 20.09.2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of BNS, registered at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur.

3.

It is noticed that vide order dated 17.10.2025 (in CRM-M59125-2025), dispute was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation

Centre of this Court, while staying the arrest of petitioner-Gurcharan Singh.

Similarly, vide order dated 27.10.2025 (in CRM-M-598862025), interim relief was granted to petitioner-Jaswinder Singh. 4.

As per the report received from the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, along with the settlement agreement dated 01.12.2025 executed with petitioner-Gurcharan Singh and settlement agreement dated 11.11.2025 executed with petitionerJaswinder Singh, financial dispute between the accused and the complainant/victim-Tajinder Singh, stood resolved in terms of the said settlement agreements.

5.

Counsel for the complainant submits that the total settled amount between the parties was Rs.15,00,000/-, which was to be paid by both the petitioners to the complainant.

6.

The last instalment of the settled amount was due on or before 31.12.2025; however, the same was not paid, thereby resulting in a violation of the terms of the settlement agreements. 7.

Subsequently, another cheque dated 10.03.2026, amounting of Rs.7,50,000/- was issued in favour of the complainant. However, upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured on 10.03.2026 itself. 8.

In view of the above, this Court finds that both the petitioners have failed to comply with the terms and conditions undertaken by them before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Consequently, they are not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in the present petitions.

9.

Accordingly, both the present petitions stand dismissed. 10.

However, in the interest of justice, it is observed that in case, the settled amount, to the satisfaction of the complainant, is paid by the petitioners on or before 18.04.2026, petitioners shall be at liberty to seek revival of the present petitions, by way of an application for recalling of this order, if so warranted in the then prevailing circumstances. 11.

With the observations recorded here above, present petitions stand disposed of.

12.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 18.03.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No