Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navjot Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 November, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRM-M-55385-2025 (O & M)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(219)
CRM-M-55385-2025 (O & M)
Date of decision: 03.11.2025
Navjot Singh ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate,
with Ms. Narender Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS,
2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.123
dated 13.07.2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) and
Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Khanna, City-2,
District Ludhiana.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Salil moved
an application dated 26-03-2025, before the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Khanna, against Jaskaran Singh son of Balwinder Singh, resident of Lalouri
Kalan, Ludhiana, with the allegations of cheating, forgery, causing wrongful
acts, misappropriation and breach of trust.
1 of 8
CRM-M-55385-2025 (O & M)
::2::
3. The inquiry into the said application was marked to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, (P.B.I, N.D.P.S-cum-Narcotics, Khanna). The said
officer, after inquiring into the matter, submitted the report to the effect that;
(i) During the inquiry, it was found that the company of the
complainant Salil, namely L&T Finance Company, Ludhiana, provides loans
for two-wheelers, houses, tractors, etc. The said company had appointed
Jaskaran Singh on 01-06-2024 as Sales Officer at Platinum Honda Agency,
Samrala, and Punjab Automobile, Samrala, for the purpose of sanctioning
two-wheeler loans. The company started its ID No. 50080413 on 03-06-
2024.
(ii) As per the statement of Jaskaran Singh, Navjot Singh
(petitioner), Ajay Kumar, and Simran Kaur, were already serving as sales-
persons in the said company in the Khanna area. However, after Jaskaran
Singh was appointed, all the said persons left their jobs with the company.
(iii) Navjot Singh, Ajay Kumar, and Simran Kaur, in connivance
with each other, on 04-06-2024, called Jaskaran Singh at a tea stall situated
opposite Platinum Honda Company, GT Road, Khanna, and by misusing his
newly issued ID, managed to fraudulently pass loans for two-wheelers. It
further came to light that OTPs sent to the mobile phones of fake customers
were also obtained by them.
(iv) During the course of the inquiry, the call details and tower
locations of mobile numbers of Navjot Singh (95010-61303), Ajay Kumar
(98769-41408), Simran Kaur (62849-67582), and Jaskaran Singh (95174-
04418) for the period 01-06-2024 to 31-08-2024, were obtained. In addition,
2 of 8
CRM-M-55385-2025 (O & M)
::3::
the company's record of Customer Application Forms (CAF) of the fake
customers on whose mobile phones the OTPs were obtained, was also
procured. On perusal thereof, it surfaced that:
(a) Navjot Singh obtained OTPs by using his own number 91154-
47820 and other fake numbers 97792-31408. 78376-74910, 99889-
56375, and 98559-29784.
(b) Ajay Kumar obtained OTPs by using mobile numbers 62809-
59601, 77195-60791, 99889-56375, and 70872-15539.
(c) Simran Kaur obtained OTPs by using her sister Kajal's number
87258-11872 and her mother Baljeet Kaur's number 99889-56375.
(v) The inquiry further revealed that the call detail records of the
above-said persons and the CAFs of the customers whose loans were passed
clearly corroborate this fact.
(vi) The inquiring officer further mentioned that Navjot Singh,
Ajay Kumar, and Simran Kaur filled fake customer numbers, obtained OTP's
thereon, and by further misusing Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, etc., of other
persons, uploaded the same under the ID of Jaskaran Singh and passed loans
thereon, thereby facilitating delivery of two-wheelers. The direct benefit of
these fraudulent acts was taken by the above-named persons, and L&T
Finance Company, Ludhiana, suffered a wrongful loss of Rs. 13,58,534/- up
to March 2025.
(vii) The inquiry further revealed that through the ID of Jaskaran
Singh, loans were fraudulently sanctioned in the names of the following 14
persons:
3 of 8
CRM-M-55385-2025 (O & M)
::4::
Sukhdev Singh (Mobile No. 98724-03912), Office Khan (Mobile No.
97792-31408), Amandeep Singh (Mobile No. 77195-60791).
Amandeep Kaur (Mobile No. 75298-58141), Rachna Rajput (Mobile
No.98376-74910), Harmel Singh (Mobile No. 62809-59601),
Kamaljit Singh (Mobile No. 85449-67189), Baljeet Kaur (Mobile No.
99889-56375), Reshma (Mobile No. 70872-15539), Rekha Rani
(Mobile No. 73473-16079), Jeet Singh (Mobile No. 87258-11872),
Kapil Counsel (Mobile No. 91154-47820), Gurmit Singh (Mobile No
98780-87440), and Mitali (Mobile No. 98539-29784)
(viii) Out of these loans, only the loans in the names of Mitali and
Reshma had eight instalments paid, whereas in respect of the other 12
persons, only one or two instalments were paid It further surfaced during the
inquiry that such instalments were paid by deduction from the salary of
Jaskaran Singh, and only Mitali and Reshma were making payments of
instalments themselves. The rest of the loans were procured by the use of
forged documents and fake mobile numbers for obtaining OTPs, and those
numbers were later found to be non-functional.
(ix) The inquiry officer concluded that Navjot Singh, Ajay Kumar,
and Simran Kaur, in connivance with each other, committed fraud with L&T
Finance Company, Ludhiana, by misusing the new appointment of Jaskaran
Singh, fraudulently operating his ID No. 50080413, uploaded forged
documents thereupon, obtaining OTPs through their own and other mobile
numbers, and thereafter got loans sanctioned to fraudulently obtain two-
wheelers. Prima facie offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, and
120-B IPC (sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2), and 61(2) BNS)
4 of 8
CRM-M-55385-2025 (O & M)
::5::
were found to be attracted against Navjot Singh, Ajay Kumar and Simran
Kaur leading to the registration of the instant FIR.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, he has not
been named in the complaint but has been nominated on the statement of
Jaskaran Singh. As he is ready and willing to join the investigation, he is
entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while
referring to the reply dated 15.10.2025 contends that the petitioner in concert
with co-accused Ajay Kumar and Simran Kaur, to perpetuate a systematic
loan fraud misused the newly issued ID No.50080413 of Jaskaran Singh,
uploaded forged KYC documents (Aadhar/PAN etc.) on that ID and
procured/feeding OTPs generated on mobile numbers controlled and
arranged by them including the petitioner's own Number 91154-47820 and
other numbers specifically traced to this fraud. The disclosure statement of
Ajay Kumar refers to the petitioner's active participation in arranging,
passing and monetising fraudulent two-wheeler loans. In fact, his custodial
interrogation is necessary for identifying the additional phone numbers and
devices, forensic examination of his digital devices, finding out to whom the
fraudulently released vehicles were sold, tracing the flow of money through
bank/UPI/wallet accounts, locating apparatus used for preparing forged
KYC etc. Further, as the offence stands prima facie established and
wrongful loss amounting to Rs.13,58,534/- seems to have been caused, the
5 of 8
CRM-M-55385-2025 (O & M)
::6::
petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Therefore,
the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sumitha Pradeep
Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977', has held that
merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the
Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima
facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already
been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the
Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for
custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where
Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we
are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted
discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court
praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to
the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the
complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its
discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a
very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed
by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused
should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail
6 of 8
CRM-M-55385-2025 (O & M)
::7::
matters, we have noticed one common argument being
canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and,
therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to
be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone
would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be
considered along with other grounds while deciding an
application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many
cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may
not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie
case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and
he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost
thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application
should consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial
interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot
be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
8. From the evidence collected so far, it is apparent that the
petitioner alongwith Ajay Kumar and Simran Kaur in connivance with each
other misused the newly issued ID of Jaskaran Singh, uploaded forged
documents, procured OTPs generated on mobile numbers controlled and
arranged by them including a number owned of the petitioner. By this
modus operandi loans were fraudulently sanctioned in the name of 14
persons. As the offence stands prima facie established and the investigation
7 of 8
CRM-M-55385-2025 (O & M)
::8::
is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is certainly required and therefore, he is not entitled to the
concession of anticipatory bail.
9. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present
petition and the same stands dismissed.
10. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this
order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial
Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence lead
before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.
11. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
November 03, 2025 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
sukhpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
