[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurpreet Singh Alias Pinder Sodi vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 December, 2025

                                                                            1

CRM-
CRM-M-66665-
      66665-2025




234
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                              CRM-
                              CRM-M-66665-
                                    66665-2025

Gurpreet Singh @ Pinder Sodi
                                                                ....Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Punjab and another
                                                              ...Respondentss

Date of decision: December 10, 2025
Date of Uploading: December 10, 2025

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:    Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate and
            Ms. Nisha Kanojia, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab.

            Mr. Gursimran Singh Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                     *****

SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ''BNSS') for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No No.13 dated 19.02.2025,,

registered for the offences offences punishable under Section Sections 420 & 120-B B of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') read with Section 13 of the Punjab

Travel Professionals Regulation Act, at Police Station Majitha, District

Amritsar (Rural).

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the

complainant, namely, Lakhbir Singh, alleged that one Blesson Gill

1 of 7

CRM-

CRM-M-66665- 66665-2025

approached him and informed him that his relative was engaged in sending

people abroad. He further assured the complainant that his two nephews

could be sent to Dubai and Portugal. A few days later, both individuals

visited the complainant's house, and a deal was finalized for ₹10,50,000/-.

The complainant handed over photocopies of the PAN cards, Aadhaar cards,

and passports of his nephews. The next day, the accused persons took

₹2,00,000/- in cash from the complainant. Thereafter, additional amounts of

₹1,50,000/-, ₹1,00,000/-, ₹1,50,000/-, ₹2,00,000/-, ₹1,00,000/-, and

₹1,00,000/- were paid to them up to 01.11.2022. The accused later claimed

that the complainant's nephews' documents were incomplete and that the

process would take more time. However, they neither sent the nephews

abroad nor returned the money. In this manner, they cheated the complainant

of a substantial amount.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner

is in custody since 21.07.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned

counsel has further iterated that FIR-complainant has no locus-standi for

having the FIR registered as also to initiate criminal proceedings against the

petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that bank account in which

the money has been allegedly transferred, does not belong to the petitioner.

Learned counsel has further iterated that, in any case, investigation qua

investigation has been culminated and challan stands presented. Thus,

regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by

arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus, the

2 of 7

CRM-

CRM-M-66665- 66665-2025

petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State

counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 09.12.2025, in the

Court today, which is taken on record.

4.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the grant of

bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are serious/ direct allegations

against the petitioner, hence, he ought not be granted concession of regular

bail. Learned counsel has further argued that the bank account in question in

which the money has been transferred actually belongs to the petitioner; he

is a habitual offender and if released on bail, there is all likelihood that the

petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and/ or indulge in any

similar offence once again. With these submissions, dismissal of the present

petition is entreated for.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the

available records of the case.

Before delving into the matter further, it would be germane to

refer herein the case law governing the issue in hand:

5.1 Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT

429, relevant whereof reads as under:

"10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has

3 of 7

CRM-

CRM-M-66665- 66665-2025

a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.

12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution."

5.2. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as

Gurcharan Singh Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as

under:

"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end."

5.3 Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as

Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under:

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great

4 of 7

CRM-

CRM-M-66665- 66665-2025

hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un- convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."

6. The petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2025 whereinafter

investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 19.09.2025.

Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is not in dispute before

this Court, that none prosecution witness has been examined till date. It is,

thus indubitable that culmination of the trial will take long. The trial

emanating from the FIR in question is essentially a magisterial one. The

rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall

essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does

not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this

stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought

forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the

process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 09.12.2025 filed by learned

State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period

of 04 months and 16 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the

appellant is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum

cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular

bail to the appellant in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant

of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the

facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed

5 of 7

CRM-

CRM-M-66665- 66665-2025

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir

Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a

Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of

Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this

Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of

Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3)

RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an

undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in

addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty

Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.