Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kulwinder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 10 November, 2025

CRM-M--62535-2025                                                           1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

104                                              CRM-M-62535-2025 (O&M)
                                                    Date of decision: 10.11.202
                                                                           .2025
Kulwinder Singh and another
                                                              ....Petitioners
                                          V/s
State of Punjab
                                                              ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
             Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner
                                                  petitioners.
             Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
             Mr. Tahaf Bains, Advocate for the complainant.
                                         *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS')

for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner petitioners in case bearing FIR

No.158 dated 19.10.2024,, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS,

2023, at Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

2. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by

complainan namely Kulwant Singh, son of Surmukh Singh, resident of complainant

Village Dhyanpura, Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar against Jagdish Ram,

son of Mewa Ram, resident of Village Kulheri, Police Station Morinda,

District Rupnagar, and his unknown accomplices. He alleged eged that he

intended to purchase a piece of land and in this regard he came in contact

with one Baljit Singh who showed him a piece of land belonging to Gurmail

Singh, Narinder Singh, Avtar Singh, and Nirmal Singh, all sons of

1 of 10

Prem Singh son of Karam Karam Singh, situated at Village Asgaripur, Tehsil

Khanna, District Ludhiana. On 23.08.2024, the complainant executed an

agreement to sell with the said individuals. It has been further alleged by the

complainant that the said Baljit Singh along with four un unidentified identified persons

deceived him into paying them a total of ₹90,00,000 (i.e. ₹10,00,000 10,00,000

through cheque withdrawn at HDFC Bank, Kurali and ₹80,00,000 80,00,000 in cash).

cash

Subsequently, when the complainant visited village illage Asgaripur, Tehsil

Khanna, District Ludhiana to verify the ownership details of the property in

question, he discovered that the actual owners of the said land are currently

residing in Canada and that the accused persons had prepared forged

documents to cheat him. Furthermore, the villagers informed the

complainant that Avtar Singh, one of the actual owners had passed away in

the year 1992 and the accused had prepared fake documents in his name. On

these set of allegations, the instant FIR was registered and investigation

ensued. During the course of investigation the name of the petitioners

surfaced on the disclosure statement of co co-accused accused Jagdish Kumar. He

alleged that the persons who had impersonated the original owners were

arranged by the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioners has iterated that the

petitioners have been falsely implicated in into the FIR in question at the

instance of co-accused co accused Jagdish Kumar (who impersonated himself as Baljit

Singh), whose disclosure statement is the only basis for naming the

petitioners. Learned counsel has further iterated that the said disclosure is

vague and devoid of any specific details and has been made with mala fide

intention due to prior enmity between the petitioners and the said co-

2 of 10

accused. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners have ha

earlier filed two police complaints against the said co-accused Jagdish

Kumar before the SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib and even the maternal uncle of

petitioner No.1 against the co-accused Jagdish Kumar for a similar act of

cheating. Learned rned counsel has further submitted that neither the

complainant has not named the petitioners in the FIR nor did he allege

payment of any amount to them. Furthermore, the agreement to sell was

executed only between the complainant and Baljit Singh (actual name

Jagdish Kumar).

Kumar). According to learned counsel, the petitioners are not

signatories to any document and have not received any consideration from

the complainant. From rom the bare perusal of the present FIR, no offence is

made out against the petitioners.

petitioner A bare reading of the FIR discloses that no

prima facie case is made out against the petitioner petitioners and their names have ha

been roped in the FIR without any cogent basis. Learned counsel asserts that

the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is

justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material

evidence. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioners are ready to join the

investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending them

behind the bars. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of instant

petition is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned earned State counsel has opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioners petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by

them is serious in nature. Learned Learned State counsel has iterated that the FIR

was registered after due inquiry by the Police and the petitioners were found

alongwith their accomplices have been found in the commission of the

3 of 10

alleged offence of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy. Learned State

counsel has iterated that the disclosure statement of co co-accused accused Jagdish

Kumar is not the sole basis for proceeding against the petitioners rather, the

investigating agency has collected corroborative evidence such as

photographs, video footage footage and statements of witnesses indicating the active

presence and participation of the petitioners in the fraudulent transaction.

Learned State counsel has further iterated that given the magnitude of the

fraud,, the economic nature of the offence and the ongoing investigation,

custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to ascertain the larger

conspiracy and to trace the flow of cheated money. Accordingly, a prayer

has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition in order to facilitate

effective investigation into the alleged offence.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has vociferously opposed

the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner petitioners by raising submission in

tandem with the learned State counsel.

6. I have heard ard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have

gone through the available record of the case.

7. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak

Yashwant Patil and another anothe passed in SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevant

whereof reads as under:

"74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the

4 of 10

investigating agency to interrogate gate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information.

         xxx                     xxx                    xxx                    xxx
         xxx                     xxx                    xxx                    xxx

75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19) "19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation int intended ended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances iin n which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an applicati application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code."

76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514],, the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature ture and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also

5 of 10

consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra Maharashtra,, (2011) 1 SCC 694 :

(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in tthe he crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husa Husain in Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)"

Economic offences

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as th they ey affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510],, it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."

15. In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 11,, Constitution Bench of this Court held that while considering an application for grant of pre pre-arrest arrest bail the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:

held:-

"92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatoryy bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a

6 of 10

matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court."

8. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably,

serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner petitioners. From the

perusal of the FIR and the material available on record, it is evident that the

complainant was induced to enter into an ag agreement reement to sell in respect of land

situated at Village Asgaripur, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana and that a

sum of Rs.90,00,000/-

Rs. was paid by him to the accused persons out of which

Rs.10,00,000/ 10,00,000/- was withdrawn through bank transaction and Rs.80,00,000/ 80,00,000/-

was allegedly paid in cash. The allegations in the FIR and the material

collected during the course of investigation prima facie disclose a serious

offence of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy in which the role of the

present petitioners is under investigation. The names of the petitioners' have

surfaced during the course of investigation and are supported by the

disclosure statement and other circumstantial evidence collected so far. The

plea of false implication on account of prior enmity or previous complaints

against the co-accused co accused cannot be accepted at this stage as such issues are

matters of evidence and the same are to be established during the course of

trial. The he economic offence involves a large sum of public money and

affects the faith of society in land transactions. Furthermore, economic conomic

offences are committed with deep-rooted deep rooted conspiracies and involve

deliberate design and, therefore, require thorough investigation. In the

considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory bail to the

petitioners at this stage, would hamper the ongoing investigation and petitioners,

7 of 10

impede the recovery of material evidence. The stand of the investigating

agency before this Court is that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners

is necessary for the purpose of uncovering the larger conspiracy, identifying

other co-accused accused and tracing the flow of cheated funds. Att the stage of

considering ring the plea for anticipatory bail, the Court is not to evaluate the

evidence but only to see whether prima facie allegations disclose a serious

offence. In the considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory bail

at this stage may likely hamper the ongoing investigation.

9. It is well settled that the anticipatory bail is an extraordinary

remedy and is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the

Court is satisfied that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and that

custodial interrogation is not required. Furthermore, the fraudulent activities

have caused cause severe financial and emotional distress to the complainant.

Therefore, individuals involved in such organized deceit must be dealt

firmly and in accordance with the law, leaving no room for leniency.

Considering onsidering the possibility of involvement of multiple persons and to

establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence coupled with

the role of the petitioners, petitioner it is not appropriate ppropriate to grant bail to the petitioners petitioner

at this nascent stage.

stage No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this

stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner petitioners have been falsely

implicated into the present FIR.

10. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for

grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding

individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon

with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the ro role le attributed to the

8 of 10

accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide

impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no

material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the

petitioner . The material which has come on record and preliminary petitioners.

investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations.

Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner petitioners,, as it

would necessarily cause impediment impediment in effective investigation. In State v.

Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 1039,, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)

"6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre pre-arrest arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third third-degree degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

offenders."

11. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the specific role

attributed to the petitioners and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a

fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the petitioners petitioner do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the

factual milieu of the case in hand.

12. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

9 of 10

(i) The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

(ii) Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression

of opinion upon merits of the case/investigatio case/investigation.

(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.





                                                    (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                       JUDGE

November 10, 2025
Ajay


             Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                      Yes/No




                              10 of 10