[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yadwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 March, 2026
105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-33134-2025 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 16.03.2026
YADWINDER SINGH .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate, and
Mr. Gurminder Singh Salana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab, along with
DSP Tejinder Pal Singh, Vigilance Bureau,
Rupnagar (Present IO),
Mr. Manik Setia, Assistant Financial Officer,
Vigilance Bureau, HQ,
SI Sandeep Kaur, Vigilance Bureau, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Ms. Isha Aggarwal, Advocate, for
Mr. Simrandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate,
for the complainant.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking
grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.44, dated 04.04.2025, under
Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61 of BNS, registered at Police
Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the
petitioner, on 23.06.2025, following order was passed:-
"2. The facts of the case are that an amount of
Rs.52 crores was deposited into the bank account of
the Gram Panchayat as sale proceeds from the
1 of 4
CRM-M-33134-2025 (O&M) -2-
transfer/sale of approximately 130 acres of Panchayat
land to the Punjab Small Scale Industrial Corporation
in May 2020. At the relevant time, Smt. Kulvir Kaur
(mother of the present petitioner) was the Sarpanch.
Subsequently, the petitioner assumed the office of
Sarpanch of the village in November 2024.
The allegation against the petitioner is that,
during the period when his mother held charge as
Sarpanch, it was the petitioner who was actively
involved in all the activities of the Gram Panchayat.
He is alleged to have been involved in the
embezzlement of approximately Rs.30 crores.
Counsel for the petitioner argues that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated and made a
scapegoat, despite the fact that the funds were utilized
only after obtaining the requisite sanctions, and the
accounts/transactions for the relevant years were duly
audited by a government agency. It is further
contended that if any embezzlement took place prior
to the petitioner's formally assuming office in
November 2024, he cannot be held responsible for the
same. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the
investigation and fully cooperate with the authorities,
and hence, seeks the grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Notice of motion.
On advance notice, Mr. Manjinder Singh
Bhullar, DAG, Punjab puts in appearance on behalf of
the respondent - State.
4. Adjourned to 10.07.2025.
5. Learned State counsel is directed to file a
detailed status report, indicating the direct or indirect
involvement of the petitioner in causing loss to the
Panchayat funds.
6. Till the next date of hearing, arrest of the
petitioner shall remain stayed. However, the issue of
the petitioner's joining the investigation will be
examined after considering the reply of the
respondents.
7. To be shown in the urgent list."
3. During the pendency of the present petition, certain graver
offences under the special statute, i.e. Prevention of Corruption Act, have
been invoked by the prosecution. Consequently, an application bearing
No.CRM-11548-2026 for addition of the said offences, i.e. Sections
2 of 4
CRM-M-33134-2025 (O&M) -3-
316(4), 318 and 61(2) of the BNS (corresponding to Sections 408, 415
and 120-B of the IPC) and Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been moved by the
petitioner, which is also listed for hearing today.
4. Learned State counsel submits that in view of the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption Act now invoked by the State, petitioner
does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. It is further submitted that anticipatory bail petition filed by
the co-accused, namely Ramesh Kumar, who was functioning as BDPO,
has already been dismissed, vide order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib.
A copy of the said order has been produced by learned State
counsel before the Court and the same is taken on record. Registry is
directed to tag the same at the appropriate place on the file.
6. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned
counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available before it.
7. In the considered view of this Court, petitioner ought to have
first sought the concession of anticipatory bail in respect of the offences
now invoked under the Prevention of Corruption Act, before the Court of
Sessions. Thereafter, in case of failure, petitioner could have approached
this Court, by filing an appropriate petition incorporating all the relevant
provisions and factual aspects.
8. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of
the present petition, with liberty to the petitioner to move an anticipatory
3 of 4
CRM-M-33134-2025 (O&M) -4-
bail petition afresh before the Court of Sessions, by explaining all the
relevant circumstances and the provisions of law, under which the
allegations have been levelled against him by the prosecution.
Upon such filing, the Court concerned shall pass a speaking
order after examining the record produced by the prosecution and
considering the factual aspects of the matter.
9. Meanwhile, in order to enable the petitioner to approach the
Court of Sessions as indicated above, it is directed that petitioner shall
not be arrested, till 23.03.2026.
10. However, it is clarified that in case, petitioner files an
application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions, the
question of grant of interim relief, if any, shall be considered by the said
Court, in accordance with law.
11. With the directions passed here above, present petition
stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
16.03.2026 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
