[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navjot Singh Brar vs State Of Punjab on 16 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-72921-2025 -1-
122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-72921-2025
Date of Decision: 16.03.2026
Navjot Singh Brar ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Balbir Singh Sewak, Advocate,
Mr. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocate and
Ms. Dilpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gurfateh Singh Khosa, Advocate for
the complainant.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in a case FIR No.181 dated 03.09.2025, registered under Sections
318(4), 316(2), 61(2) and 238 of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Baghapurana,
District Moga.
2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case
was registered on the statement of complainant Ashwani Kumar. It was
alleged that Kuldeep Singh was complainant's classmate and had introduced
his son, Navjot Singh Brar (petitioner), and daughter-in-law, Pritpal Kaur
Brar, to the complainant. Subsequently, through them, the complainant sent
his son and daughter to Canada, as they were running an IELTS centre.
Thereafter, they started a property investment business with the complainant
and initially paid him profits in order to gain his trust. Navjot Singh Brar
also involved his brother-in-law and his wife in the business and thus, all of
them, after due deliberation, took approximately Rs.2.25 crores from the
1 of 4
complainant, his wife and children. Thereafter, on the pretext of settling the
complainant and his wife in Canada, the accused allegedly duped them of
about 55 tolas of gold and an additional Rs.15 lacs. Thus, request was made
to take legal action against the accused persons. On the registration of the
FIR, the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on
10.09.2025. He approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Moga praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the
sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail
application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 09.12.2025. Hence, the
petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of bail by way of
filing the present petition
3. It has been vehemently contended by learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that from the allegations made in the FIR, it is apparent that
the dispute between both the sides is purely of civil nature. He submits that
the transaction of amount of Rs.2.25 crores is not on account of cheating or
fraud on the part of the petitioner, however, both the sides had invested the
said amount in the property business. He submits that once profit of the
complainant reduced, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused have been
clandestinely roped in the present case. He submits that the petitioner has
been prosecuted by the complainant in a case under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the same is pending. He submits that
the petitioner is behind the bars from the last about six months. He submits
that the investigation is complete and charges have been framed. He has
submitted that though is involved in one more case, however, is on bail in
the same. He, thus, submits that in the overall facts and circumstances of the
2 of 4
case, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that total
amount having been cheated by the petitioner is Rs.2.25 crores and the
petitioner is facing prosecution in other FIR also. On instructions, he
submits that out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been
examined so far. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently
opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has
submitted that the petitioner alongwith the co-accused allured the
complainant to part with a heavy amount and thereafter, after having been
parted with an amount of more than two crores, the complainant found
himself to have been cheated by the petitioner and other co-accused. He
submits that the petitioner is facing prosecution in two more FIRs.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it
is deciphered that the dispute between the parties is regarding transaction of
amount. Admittedly, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, have already been pending against the petitioner at
the behest of the complainant. Custody certificate of the petitioner shows
that the petitioner has completed incarnation of 06 months & 02 days as on
15.03.2026. Custody certificate of the petitioner shows that the petitioner is
involved in one more case.
7. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the
conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both
3 of 4
the parties before the trial Court. The trial of the case will take sufficient
long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and
perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the
petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
9. It is being clarified that in case the petitioner does not furnish
bail/surety bonds within a period of one week from today, his custody will
not be counted in the present case after one week.
10. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
16.03.2026 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
