High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 P&H CK 1007

Simranjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 9 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sumeet Goel, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M No.27514 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 834 words

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1.

On 14.5.2026, the following order was passed:

‘The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short - ‘the BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.45 dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short - ‘the IPC’) [316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short - ‘the BNS’)] registered at Police Station Anaj Mandi, District Patiala.

2.

Allegations against the present petitioner are that he along with other co-accused namely, Amritpal Singh, Gurveen Kaur, Kamalpreet Kaur and Amarjeet Singh has duped the complainants of an amount of Rs.8,70,000/- each on the pretext of sending the complainants abroad, but neither the complainants were sent abroad nor their money was returned to them.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present petitioner has been falsely involved in this case, as the petitioner was previously employed with one Gurpreet Singh in the year 2021-22, however, he left the job and started his own business. The wife of the petitioner made a complaint against said Gurpreet Singh and due to grudge against the petitioner, false case has been registered against him. The complainant, namely, Gurpal Singh was earlier an employee of Gurpreet Singh and were well acquainted with each other; in support thereof the petitioner has annexed photographs (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that present FIR has been lodged by complainant Gurpal Singh at the behest of petitioner’s former employer Gurpreet Singh as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by petitioner’s wife against Gurpreet Singh. Earlier, a similar case bearing FIR No.307 dated 03.12.2022, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC was registered by another employee of said Gurpreet Singh, namely Bachhiter Singh and, in that case, the petitioner was granted the concession of anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 08.11.2024 passed in CRM-M-54502-2024 and a quashing petition bearing CRM-M No.44697 of 2025 in the said FIR is pending for adjudication before this Court. In fact, said Gurpreet Singh is a man of criminal antecedents, and 31 cases have been registered against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the present case the allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless, as there is no documentary proof with regard to any payment of such huge amount to the petitioner. The family members of the petitioner have also been roped in the present FIR just to harass the petitioner as well as his family members and as such, prayed for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to him.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

In pursuance of advance notice, Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab put in appearance and accepted notice on behalf of respondent State and submitted that the present petitioner along with co-accused duped the complainants.

6.

On a query posed by this Court as to whether there is any bank transaction regarding this amount or any receipt executed by the petitioner, learned counsel for the State prayed for an adjournment to file reply in this regard.

7.

Permitted to do so.

8.

Adjourned to 16.07.2026.

9.

In the meantime, no coercive method be used against the present petitioner till the next date of hearing.’

1.1

On 13.8.2026, the following order was passed:

‘Reiterating submissions as recorded in the order dated 14.05.2026, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate.

Put up on 09.09.2026.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 19.08.2026 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.’

2.

Learned State counsel (on instructions) submits that pursuant to the orders dated 14.5.2026 and 13.8.2026, the petitioner has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial interrogation.

3.

In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. Interim orders dated 14.5.2026 and 13.8.2026, passed by this Court are made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

4.

This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read as granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

5.

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

6.

Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.