[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pupinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.3693 of 2026
Pupinder Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 23.04.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 29.04.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 29.04.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. M.K. Dhot, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
None for the complainant.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short
authenticity of this order /judgment
"BNSS") seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
175 09.06.2025 Beri, District 406 and 34 of IPC
Jhajjar
2. As per the allegations, the present petitioner along with co-
accused Tirath Singh and Ajmer Singh alias Sodhi had duped the
complainant Priyanka and her family members of an amount of Rs.25 lakhs
on the premise of sending the complainant to Canada. Neither she was sent
abroad nor the money belonging to the family of the complainant was
returned and on asking for the same, the petitioner had been extending
threats to the complainant and her family. As such, she prayed for taking
action in the matter.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been
initiated and are underway. Accused Ajmer Singh had joined investigation
and suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and
also that the present petitioner who is his brother and his relative Tirath
Singh had taken Rs.10 lakhs in cash from the complainant. They had given
cheques as security to Priyanka for sending her brother abroad.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for anticipatory
bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Session
Judge, Jhajjar vide order dated 15.01.2026
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. Infact, there was a monetary transaction
between father of the complainant and himself. The entire amount of money
authenticity of this order /judgment
payable to her father had been returned along with interest. The petitioner
had issued security cheque as a matter of financial assurance. On dishonour
of the said cheque, separate proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act had been initiated by the complainant. The co-accused
Ajmer Singh has been extended benefit of pre arrest bail. The case of
petitioner is at similar footing and as such, he too deserves to be extended
the same benefit. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial
interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is,
therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana while
relying upon the status report has argued that the allegations against the
petitioner are serious in nature as in connivance with the co-accused, he had
duped the complainant and her family members of an amount of Rs.25 lakhs
by inducing her on the pretext of sending her abroad. The petitioner had
signed an affidavit promising to return the money but never returned it. He
had given a cheque which has been bounced. The allegations make out a
prima facie case showing complicity of the petitioner in commission of the
subject offences. Mere pendency of complaint under Section 138 of NI Act
cannot be stated to be a ground for extending benefit of pre arrest bail to the
petitioner in this case. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation,
the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. There is no exceptional
and extraordinary circumstance for grant of bail. It is, therefore, argued that
the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
authenticity of this order /judgment
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner, in connivance with the co-accused, is alleged to
have duped the complainant of huge amount of money on the pretext of
sending her abroad and thereby cheating her. Pendency of a complaint under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act itself cannot be stated to be a
ground for granting benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The
allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offence
as against the petitioner. For conducting thorough investigation in the
matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. It is well settled
proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to
secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The
powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be
exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion
conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of
mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant's
fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for
grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere
of investigation of an offence. The Court has also to see that an order of
anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad in the normal legal
procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. The Court must be
circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it
should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the
Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra
authenticity of this order /judgment
ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances
warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court
are existing. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, the role attributed
to the petitioner, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation
and also of tampering with the evidence, no ground has been made out for
allowing the petition. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
29.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
