Harkawal Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.01.2026 Harkawal Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :
Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.
1. For the commission of offence punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended by (Amendment)Act 2018, the FIR No. 07 dated 07.04.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Economic Offences Wing, District Ludhiana.
2. In the above-mentioned case the petitioner is apprehending his arrest, and therefore, he has approached this Court for the benefit of anticipatory bail, by virtue of present petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred as "BNSS" only.
3. Briefly stating, the allegations against the petitioner are that on the basis of complaint moved by Ritik Singh, the officials of Vigilance Wing conducted a raid with regard to payment of bribe to an agent in the office of Regional Transport Officer, Ludhiana. The money given by the complainant to an agent, namely Deepak Kumar, was recovered, and pursuant to his disclosure statement, his associate, namely Monty Chhabra was arrested. As per prosecution case, on the disclosure statement suffered by
-2Monty Chhabra, the petitioner has been implicated in this case.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent, and waives service.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is not a regular employee, and that he is working as a Data Entry Operator in the office of Regional Transport Officer, Jagraon, whereas the case pertains to the office of Regional Transport Officer, Ludhiana. It has been further contended that the benefit of regular bail has already been accorded to the main accused, namely Deepak Kumar, and the benefit of interim anticipatory bail has been accorded to co-accused, namely Monty Chhabra.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to fix his role in the commission of crime.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. They are:- i) that the petitioner is being prosecuted in view of nomination by the co-accused, whose disclosure statement has been recorded in police custody;
ii) that the petitioner is not an authorized person who could have given any kind of relief to the complainant under his own signatures;
iii) that the public servant, to whom the money had to be paid, is yet to be identified;
iv) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;
v) that the investigation and trial of the case are not likely to be concluded in near future;
vi) that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to serve any purpose; and vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if the benefit of anticipatory bail is accorded to the petitioner, he will tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.
11. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for interim anticipatory bail.
12. Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory
-3bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
13. List on 17.12.2025.
14. Let status report and detailed reply be filed by the State by next date.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 28.01.2026 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No