[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 March, 2026
CRM-M-40432-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
120
CRM-M-40432-2025
Decided on: 23.03.2026
Prem Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG Punjab
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023
(earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who
has been booked in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.72, dated 04.06.2025,
under Sections 318 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Doraha, Khanna,
District Ludhiana.
2. On 29.07.2025, following order was passed:
"(i) *** *** *** ***
(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the
complainant, Vishal Prabhakar, along with one Charanjit Kaur, were the joint
owners of a property measuring 4840 square yards, and had executed a General
Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 19.05.2010 in favour of the petitioner, Prem
Singh. On the same date, an agreement to sell was also executed in favour of the
petitioner by the aforementioned parties. Relying upon the said GPA, petitioner
subsequently executed a sale deed dated 02.02.2011 in favour of one Dilbagh
Singh for an area measuring 2140 square yards. Thereafter, petitioner executed
another agreement to sell dated 09.11.2022 in favour of Sheetal Garg for an
area measuring 2133.66 square yards.
Thus, the counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the GPA and
1 of 3
CRM-M-40432-2025
agreement to sell dated 19.05.2010, executed by the complainant himself, are not
under dispute and pertains to total area of 4840 square yards, it cannot be
assumed that petitioner has exceeded the authority vested in him under the said
GPA. When the area sold to Dilbagh Singh (2140 square yards) and the area
agreed to be sold to Sheetal Garg (2133.66 square yards) are combined, total
comes to 4273.66 square yards, which is well within the limits of the authorized
area.
(iii) It is further submitted that dispute is essentially of a civil nature,
involving questions that are to be resolved on the basis of documentary evidence.
Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would serve no meaningful
purpose and is not warranted in the circumstances. Moreover, petitioner is
ready to join the investigation and fully cooperate, if he is protected from arrest
by this Court. Thus, prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in the present case.
(iv) Notice of motion.
(v) On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in
appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and refers to paragraph No.6 of
the order dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure P-8), whereby plea of bail made by the
petitioner was rejected.
(vi) Ms. Kanwals Walia, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the
complainant, and files her vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on
record.
(vii) Counsel for the complainant submits that, apart from the execution of the
aforementioned sale deed dated 02.02.2011 and agreement to sell dated
09.11.2022, petitioner has also entered into agreements with other individuals,
as petitioner is habitual in engaging in such fraudulent transactions. In support
of this contention, reference is made to FIR No. 42 dated 01.04.2024, registered
under Section 420 of the IPC at Police Station Doraha, Ludhiana, wherein
petitioner is also an accused. On these grounds, counsel for the complainant
opposes grant of bail to the petitioner in the present case. However, she seeks
some time to file a detailed reply in the matter.
(viii) Adjourned to 08.09.2025.
(ix) In the meanwhile, petitioner shall not be arrested. However, issue of joining
of investigation by the petitioner would be examined on the next date of hearing,
after reviewing the status report, which is yet to be filed by learned State
counsel.
(x) Reply, if any, be filed by the complainant, on or before the next date of
hearing."
2 of 3
CRM-M-40432-2025
3. The allegations appears to be verified from the documentary evidence
i.e. revenue record etc., showing the share holding in the land in question.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel though opposes the prayer of
bail, however, he could not point out any specific evidence or material collected
during the investigation.
5. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by counsel for the
parties and has also gone through the record available before it, and finds it
appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the
present case.
6. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to join the investigation within two
weeks from today, or as and when called by the investigating agency, and in the
eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory bail, subject
to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The
petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2)
of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).
7. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to
the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would
submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.
It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial,
petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court.
8. With the directions issued here above, present petition stands disposed
of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
23.03.2026 JUDGE
reena
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
3 of 3
