Malkit Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.03.2026 MALKIT SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. L.K.Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Pandher, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 196 dated 29.08.2025 under Sections 308(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 351(2) of BNS registered at Police Station City Jagraon District Ludhiana (Rural). 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, with co-accused, conspired to defraud the complainant, a Canadian citizen, of approximately ₹6.14 crores under the pretext of arranging his marriage and facilitating property purchase in India. The petitioner allegedly entered into an agreement to sell land he did not own and received a share of the proceeds. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner does not own the land corresponding to the khasra number mentioned in the FIR and had merely entered into an agreement to sell with Manpreet Singh, who had agreed to sell the land to him. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter

-2entered into an agreement with the complainant and received ₹50,00,000/- by cheque, but has neither cheated anyone nor fabricated any document. It is further submitted that co-accused have already been granted regular bail by this Court, the petitioner is in custody since 30.08.2025, and the civil litigation is pending between Manpreet Singh and the complainant. Hence, the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail.

4.

On the other hand ld. State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. He has filed the status report by way of affidavit of Jaswinder Singh, PPS, DSP, Jagraon District Ludhiana (Rural) and custody certificate in the Court today and the same are taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 11 days and is not involved in any other case. It is also submitted that challan has been filed and charges are yet to be framed.

5.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

6.

After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 11 days and is not involved in any other case, co-accused(s) have already been granted concession of regular bail and that the trial has not yet commenced and is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

-37.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

9.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 17.03.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No