[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2026
CRM-M-18056-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222
CRM-M-18056-2026
Date of decision: 29.04.2026
MANDEEP SINGH
...-Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
.... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present:- | Mr. Amandeep Singh Jawandha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for the complainant.
3 2k 3k ok 2
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.53 dated 05.03.2026 registered under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338,
336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNSS at Police Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner, in
connivance with the other co-accused, allegedly forged the signatures of the
complainant and, in collusion with each other, committed fraud upon the
Sahibana Women Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited. Hence, the
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated and the present matter. He contends that the
petitioner and his family had been associated with the Cooperative Society
for several years with an unblemished record and, during their tenure, the
2026 PRG 8556
CRM-M-18056-2026
society progressed substantially in its annual turnover. He further submits
that no member has alleged non-payment or misappropriation of funds and
no amount is shown to have been embezzled. The accounts of the society
were regularly audited by the competent authorities and no financial
irregularity was ever pointed out. He argues that the entire prosecution case
rests upon a solitary discrepancy in an Excel sheet, which at best could be a
clerical or typographical error and does not constitute any offence of
cheating or forgery. It is further contended that all transactions were
conducted through proper banking channels and duly reflected in official
records. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner
is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do
so by the investigating agency.
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
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 18.03.2026.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the
status report and relying upon the same has opposed the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, by submitting that the petitioner was actively involved, in
connivance with the co-accused, in manipulating Excel sheets relating to
disbursement of payments of the Cooperative Society and dishonestly
diverting society funds into his own account by using false beneficiary
entries. He further submits that the petitioner also forged the signatures of
the complainant on documents submitted to the bank. It is contended that the
allegations are supported by the statement of the complainant, enquiry
=->=
2026: PHHC 085564 Ee
CRM-M-18056-2026
report, Excel sheets, bank records and other material collected during
investigation. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation is
at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to
trace the siphoned amount, recover original records and digital devices, and
to unearth the larger conspiracy involving the co-accused and therefore, the
present petition deserves dismissal.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer of the
petitioner and submits that the petitioner in connivance with co-accused has
duped the complainant, co-operative society and its members of their hard
earned money. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the relief prayed
for. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the relief prayed for.
7. Heard.
8. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are
serious in nature, as he is specifically named for manipulating Excel sheets
of the Cooperative Society and diverting funds into his own account through
false entries. As per the State reply, the statement of the complainant,
enquiry report, Excel sheets and bank records prima facie connect the
petitioner with the alleged offence. There are also allegations of forging the
complainant's signatures on documents submitted to the bank. The
investigation so far requires deeper probe regarding misappropriation of
funds and involvement of petitioner and co-accused persons, for which
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective
investigation. 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
2026 PRG 8556
CRM-M-18056-2026
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
imaterials 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. 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 hereby dismissed.
2026 PRG 085564 :
CRM-M-18056-2026
a
10. It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed
to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
29.04.2026 JUDGE
Mohit Bishnoi
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
