[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-13849 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
211 CRM-M-13849 of 2026
Date of Decision: 18.04.2026
Balwinder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amritpal Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the
BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.31 dated 13.02.2026 registered under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Jodhewal, District
Ludhiana.
2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in
connivance with co-accused Surinder Singh induced the complainant and
duped him for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs on the pretext of selling a plot. Hence, the
present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that in
fact, it is the co-accused Surender Singh, who has entered into an agreement
to sell dated 12.08.2025 with the complainant. He further submitted that the
amount of Rs.7 lakhs was received by co-accused Surender Singh only. He
further argued that when the complainant failed to pay the remaining amount
to said co-accused on the date of execution of the sale deed i.e. on
12.11.2025, then complainant lodged a false FIR against the petitioner as well
as the said co-accused Surender Singh. He argued that the petitioner was
only a marginal witness in the agreement to sell and has nothing to do with
the transaction allegedly took place between the complainant and co-accused
Surender Singh. He further submitted that the petitioner is not the
beneficiary of any transaction in any manner. He further submitted that the
entire case is based on documentary evidence which are already in possession
of the complainant or the investigating agency, hence, nothing is to be
recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and
when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays that
present petition be allowed.
4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and
is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application
for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 05.03.2026.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the
status report in the matter and while referring to the same, he has vehemently
opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground
that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He
argued that the petitioner in connivance with co-accused Surender Singh had
represented to the complainant that co-accused is the owner of the plot. He
further argued that the petitioner is also witness of the agreement to sell. He
further submitted that the petitioner is involved in two more cases meaning
thereby he is a habitual offender. He further submitted that the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in
the matter, to unearth the modus operandi of accused, and to recover the
amount involved in the alleged fraud. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the
petition.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions made
by learned State counsel and while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner, he submits that the petitioner has cheated the complainant
for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs by inducing him to enter into agreement to sell of
someone else's land. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of
bail.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition.
The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature involving a
substantial amount allegedly obtained by inducing the complainant under false
pretences. The petitioner in connivance with co-accused Surender Singh had
committed fraud of Rs.7 lakhs with the complainant by entering into agreement
to sell of someone else's land and he is also witness of the said agreement to
sell. The custodial interrogation is necessary for unearthing the modus
operandi as well as to recovery of the defrauded amount. The involvement of
the petitioner in other criminal cases also cannot be ignored at this stage. The
events in entirety indicate towards the existence of a bigger syndicate indulging
in dubious activities as a result of which, innocent victims end up being preyed
upon by such illusory tactics. While considering the plea for grant of
anticipatory bail, this Court is required to consider the overall nature of offence
and accusations against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of
offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection to the
petitioner, at this stage. The investigation is at nascent stage and granting
anticipatory bail to the petitioner with such allegations, at this preliminary
stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and
undermine the seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the
allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for
effective investigation in the matter.
8. 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 interest(s). The Court ought to reckon
with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused;
the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of
such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State Vs. Anil Sharma', (1997) 7 SCC
187, wherein it has been held as under:
"6. We find, force in the submission of CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than
questioning a suspect who is well-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 information 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-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 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 a responsible manner and that those
entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct
themselves as offenders."
9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as "P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24, while
dealing with economic offences, has held that the power of anticipatory bail
should be sparingly exercised in economic offences. The relevant portion of the
judgment is reproduced as under:-
"77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other
judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted
only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State
of Bihar, 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 the
crime and would not misuse his liberty".
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
they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of
Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, it was held that in economic
offences, the accuse is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
XXX XXX XXX
83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may
frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and
in collecting the useful information and also the materials which
might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would
elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the
court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic
offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.
Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the
respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of
the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to
grant anticipatory bail".
10. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition in
the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and if it is denied, it will leave
many loose ends, which is not desired. Thus, the present petition being devoid
of merits is accordingly dismissed.
11. It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to
be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
18.04.2026 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
