Bhupinder Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 09.02.2026 BHUPINDER SINGH ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present:
Mr. Viren Sibal, Advocate, and Mr. Shayon Sen, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Jagdeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate, for the complainant.
**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1.
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 163 dated 12.09.2025, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar. 2.
On 03.11.2025, following order was passed:- "i) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 163 dated 12.09.2025, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.
ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prime accused in the present case is Rajiv Arora, who ultimately derived benefit from the sanctioning of a loan of Rs.2.5 crore and a top-up loan of Rs.1.40 crores.
iii) Relying upon the order dated 15.10.2025 passed in CRM-M-58234-2025 and CRM-M-58238-
2025 in respect of Amit Anand and Manoj Kumar, learned counsel submits that the said employees, who were serving as Regional Sales Manager and Regional Credit Manager at Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Jalandhar, have already been granted the concession of interim bail, and their petitions are now fixed for 03.12.2025.
iv) Allegation levelled against the petitioner are that he being the Branch Credit Manager of the Chola Mandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, handled the loan file along with Branch Sale Manager - Raj Kumar, and got sanctioned the first loan of Rs.2.5 crore after the loan file was handed over to them by the Direct Sale Agent Ashish Gulati. v) It is further revealed from the inquiry that petitioner's name and stamp appeared beneath the legal report in respect of loan amount of Rs.2.5 crores, which was done on asking of Regional Sales Manager Amit Kumar and Regional Credit Manager Manoj Kumar.
vi) Learned counsel further argues that, in fact, the loan amount of Rs.2.5 crores was partly utilized for clearing an existing loan liability of Rs.80 lakhs with the Union Bank of India, which stood in the name of M/s Niraj Medicare, wherein complainant, Rampal Arora, was also one of the partners. Therefore, it is argued that, upon sanctioning of the disputed loan of Rs.2.5 crores, part of the complainant's liability as a partner in M/s Niraj Medicare also stood adjusted.
vii) Counsel submits that since petitioner is not directly involved in the alleged fraud, he seeks permission to join the investigation. However, he prays that petitioner be granted the concession of anticipatory bail, submitting that he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, provided he is protected from arrest.
viii) Notice of motion.
On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, appears on behalf of the respondent - State. He seeks some time to file status report. Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jagdeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant.
ix) List on 03.12.2025.
x) Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).
xi) Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.
It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court.
xii) To be heard along with CRM-M-582342025 and CRM-M-58238-2025." 3.
Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 03.11.2025, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order.
4.
Learned State counsel on instructions, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. 5.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6.
Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 03.11.2025, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.
However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. 7.
Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
8.
However, present order would be subject to the submission of passport of the petitioner to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, he would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.
It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 09.02.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned:
YES/NO Whether Reportable:
YES/NO