CRM-M-33781 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 107 MANJINDER SINGH @MANINDER SINGH @DIMPY STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P record. 2. petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 02.04.2026 303(2), 341, 3(5), 317 33781-2026(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION MANJINDER SINGH @MANINDER SINGH @DIMPY VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The learned State Counsel has filed This petition for pre-arrest bail is petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. .2026, for the commission of of 303(2), 341, 3(5), 317(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 217 8587 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33781-2026(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 20.07.2026 MANJINDER SINGH @MANINDER SINGH @DIMPY .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH or the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Advocate for the complainant. The learned State Counsel has filed reply. The same be taken on arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.85 dated , for the commission of offence punishable under Section (2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 217 of Bharatiya .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT . The same be taken on filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated fence punishable under Sections Bharatiya GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.21 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33781 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ Moti Nagar 3. ‘Amit Kumar’ stated by the above registration No.PB10 abovementioned truck, for repair in the workshop 10.05.2025 and thereafter, complainant, registration number of his truck has been the same truck 4. statement 5. 6. a false FIR has been lodged by the complainant allegation allegation of petitioner on 10.05.202 after a gap of more than counsel for the petitioner that Court of Judicial Magistrate the possession of petitioner. 33781-2026(O&M) Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’ Moti Nagar, District Ludhiana. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of Amit Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that registration No.PB10-JA-4813. According to complainant, he had parked his abovementioned truck, for repair in the workshop 10.05.2025 and thereafter, it was not returned to him complainant, on 20.09.2025 he received a message from toll plaza registration number of his truck has been the same truck was being used by the petitioner and others. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a false FIR has been lodged by the complainant allegations against the petitioner can be gauged from allegation of the complainant, he had parked his truck in front of workshop of petitioner on 10.05.2025, but the FIR has been lodged on 02.04.2026 after a gap of more than then months. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also, the offence is tria Court of Judicial Magistrate and nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. 8587 2 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNS’, Police Station The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was named complainant that he was owner of a truck bearing . According to complainant, he had parked his abovementioned truck, for repair in the workshop of petitioner on it was not returned to him. According to on 20.09.2025 he received a message from toll plaza that registration number of his truck has been changed as PB10-JF-2781 and that by the petitioner and others. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned , formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a false FIR has been lodged by the complainant, and that the falsity of against the petitioner can be gauged from the fact that as per rked his truck in front of workshop , but the FIR has been lodged on 02.04.2026, i.e. months. It has also been contended by learned otherwise also, the offence is triable by the and nothing has been left to be recovered from , Police Station The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. It was he was owner of a truck bearing . According to complainant, he had parked his of petitioner on According to that that mentioned , formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the falsity of the the fact that as per rked his truck in front of workshop , i.e. months. It has also been contended by learned ble by the and nothing has been left to be recovered from GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.21 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33781 7. false story has been cooked the commission of crime, whereas the petitioner has nothing to do with the possession of truck, nor with the financing truck. 8. for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. been contended by learned petitioner was known to the complainant and that parked outside the workshop of the petitioner, but later on complainant removed the abovementioned truck and misused the same. learned counsel for the complainant, when complainant approached the petitioner or the other message with regard to use of FASTag 9. is a person, who has long criminal history, and that in the present case, not only the stolen property has to be present case, and the truck was in use 10. 11. settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect 33781-2026(O&M) The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that a false story has been cooked-up by the complainant to frame the the commission of crime, whereas the petitioner has nothing to do with the possession of truck, nor with the financing The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that petitioner was known to the complainant and that parked outside the workshop of the petitioner, but later on complainant removed the abovementioned truck and misused the same. learned counsel for the complainant, when complainant approached the petitioner, the complainant continued to delaying or the other, and that the complainant was alarmed when he received a message with regard to use of FASTag fixed on his truck. The learned State Counsel has also contended that the petitioner on, who has long criminal history, and that in the present case, not only the stolen property has to be recovered, but also the has to be unearthed, as the number plate of the truck w present case, and the truck was in use with a fake number plate The record has been perused carefully. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect 8587 3 learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that a up by the complainant to frame the petitioner in the commission of crime, whereas the petitioner has nothing to do, neither with the possession of truck, nor with the financing of the abovementioned The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has counsel for the complainant that in fact the petitioner was known to the complainant and that is why the truck was parked outside the workshop of the petitioner, but later on complainant removed the abovementioned truck and misused the same. According to learned counsel for the complainant, when complainant approached the t continued to delaying the matter on one pretext , and that the complainant was alarmed when he received a fixed on his truck. The learned State Counsel has also contended that the petitioner on, who has long criminal history, and that in the present case, not has to be recovered, but also the modus operandi , as the number plate of the truck was changed in the with a fake number plate The record has been perused carefully. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect, while learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that a petitioner in neither the abovementioned The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel It has in fact the is why the truck was parked outside the workshop of the petitioner, but later on complainant According to learned counsel for the complainant, when complainant approached the the matter on one pretext , and that the complainant was alarmed when he received a The learned State Counsel has also contended that the petitioner on, who has long criminal history, and that in the present case, not modus operandi as changed in the As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is while GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.21 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33781 exercising power matter of only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 12. the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a r anticipatory bail is a rule. 13. case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending u According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to misc justice and may hamper the investigation. 14. Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary r 33781-2026(O&M) exercising power to grant anticipatory bail and i matter of routine. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. With regard to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Co the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to misc justice and may hamper the investigation. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 8587 4 grant anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held ule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of pon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of emedy to a person accused of grave offence. t should not be granted as a . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for urt of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held ule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of pon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of arriage of Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.21 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33781 15. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 16. very serious allegations against the petitioner qua the fact that he was the person to whom was found plying on the road. help of custodial interrogation of the petitioner, it what circumstances the truck of the compla 17. custodial interrogation Agency, and in the present case, if such right is den Agency, 33781-2026(O&M) In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. (ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. In the present case, it is relevant to mention here that there are very serious allegations against the petitioner qua the fact that he was the to whom possession of the truck was handed over was found plying on the road. The abovementioned fact help of custodial interrogation of the petitioner, it what circumstances the truck of the compla It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial interrogation is a valuable right and in the present case, if such right is den the same may result into miscarriage of justice 8587 5 In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. mate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be In the present case, it is relevant to mention here that there are very serious allegations against the petitioner qua the fact that he was the truck was handed over, and later on, it The abovementioned facts show that with the help of custodial interrogation of the petitioner, it has to be ascertained under what circumstances the truck of the complainant was being used. t shall not be out of place to mention here that right of is a valuable right available to an Investigating and in the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating result into miscarriage of justice. In such In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the mate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be In the present case, it is relevant to mention here that there are very serious allegations against the petitioner qua the fact that he was the and later on, it with the has to be ascertained under right of ting ied to the Investigating . In such GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.21 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33781 circumstances Investigating Agency 18. the relevant laws, it the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre devoid of merits accordingly 19. hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 20. application 20.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 33781-2026(O&M) circumstances the investigation may not take a proper headway Investigating Agency may not be able to collect requisite evidence. Considering the above-discussed facts and circumstances and the relevant laws, it is hereby observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner benefit of pre-arrest bail. Thus, it is hereby held devoid of merits and deserves dismissal accordingly. It is, however, clarified that the observations hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. .2026 (SURYA PA Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 8587 6 may not take a proper headway and the may not be able to collect requisite evidence. discussed facts and circumstances and observed that no ground exists for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner, by according him ereby held that the present petition dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed It is, however, clarified that the observations recorded hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No and the discussed facts and circumstances and no ground exists for invoking the petition is dismissed, recorded hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.21 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document