IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 103 LAKHBIR SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr Ms. Himani Arora, A.A.G, Punjab Mr. G.S. Bhatia, MANISHA BATRA 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Section 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered o recorded by the complainant registration No. PB was kept along with his tractor Gurudwara on the night previous to 05.09.2023 under Sections recorded a supplementary statement petitioner and co Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of decision: LAKHBIR SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Satnam Singh Thakur,, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Himani Arora, A.A.G, Punjab Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short-‘BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. registered under Section 457 and 380 of IPC, at Police The aforementioned FIR was registered o by the complainant-Bikram Singh alleging that his tractor bearing registration No. PB-18A 3630 and a machine for construction of roof which pt along with his tractor and had been parked outside the local on the night previous to 05.09.2023 s 447 and 380 of IPC was registered. The complainant then recorded a supplementary statement on the basis of which petitioner and co-accused Baldev Singh Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.19054 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.04.2025 …. Petitioner …. Respondent MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Himani Arora, A.A.G, Punjab. Advocate for respondent No.3. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.152 dated 05.09.2023 of IPC, at Police Beas, Amritsar. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement Singh alleging that his tractor bearing and a machine for construction of roof which and had been parked outside the local on the night previous to 05.09.2023, had been found stolen. A case and 380 of IPC was registered. The complainant then on the basis of which, the present were nominated as accused. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of pre- Bharatiya for grant of anticipatory 05.09.2023 statement Singh alleging that his tractor bearing and a machine for construction of roof which and had been parked outside the local had been found stolen. A case and 380 of IPC was registered. The complainant then present nated as accused. - Jyoti 2025.04.09 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM arrest bail which Sessions Judge, Amritsar 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that falsely implicated in this case by the complainant due to professional/business rivalry. He was not named in the FIR. concerned Police Station in December 20 to inquire into the matter, he was confined and his signatures were obtained and some compromise compensation to the complainant. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves pre arrest bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the petition, is ready to argue the matter. 6. At this stage, memo of appearance filed on behalf of the complainant is taken 7. Learne complainant has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner He along with co vicinity and had been identified from the custodial interrogation is required for matter, for effecting recovery of the stolen tractor CRM-M No.19054 of 2025 arrest bail which had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 19.03.2025. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that falsely implicated in this case by the complainant due to professional/business . He was not named in the FIR. His employee concerned Police Station in December 2023 and when the petitioner had gone to inquire into the matter, he was confined and his signatures were obtained compromise fetching undertaking to give a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs as compensation to the complainant. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is not required. He is ready to join investigation. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves Notice of motion. Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the is ready to argue the matter. At this stage, memo of appearance filed on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner He along with co-accused was captured in CCTV camera installed in the vicinity and had been identified from the same by the complainant. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting thoro or effecting recovery of the stolen tractor M No.19054 of 2025 -2- dismissed by the Court of learned Additional vide order dated 19.03.2025. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant due to professional/business His employee was called at the and when the petitioner had gone to inquire into the matter, he was confined and his signatures were obtained undertaking to give a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs as compensation to the complainant. No recovery is to be effected from him. His not required. He is ready to join investigation. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the At this stage, memo of appearance filed on behalf of the State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. in CCTV camera installed in the same by the complainant. His conducting thorough investigation in the or effecting recovery of the stolen tractor, roof machine. No extra dismissed by the Court of learned Additional he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant due to professional/business was called at the and when the petitioner had gone to inquire into the matter, he was confined and his signatures were obtained undertaking to give a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs as compensation to the complainant. No recovery is to be effected from him. His not required. He is ready to join investigation. With to be extended benefit of Learned State counsel who has appeared on advance notice of the At this stage, memo of appearance filed on behalf of the State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the . in CCTV camera installed in the same by the complainant. His ugh investigation in the extra Jyoti 2025.04.09 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM ordinary and exceptional Accordingly, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to 8. Rival contentions have been heard. 9. The petitioner along with co theft of the tractor and fateful night. The containing CCTV footage of the camera showing away the tractor and the machine belonging to the complainant. The claim of the respondent- purpose of eliciting information authenticity of the a sum of Rs.2.50 lakh to the complainant extra ordinary circumstance has been pointed out by the petitioner for grant of pre arrest bail for the purpose of conduc matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, his custodial inter required. Accordingly, Hence, the same is dismissed. 10. It is, however, clarified th not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case 07.04.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.19054 of 2025 ordinary and exceptional circumstances for grant of bail Accordingly, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to Rival contentions have been heard. The petitioner along with co-accused is theft of the tractor and some machine belonging to the complainant on the fateful night. The complainant himself has placed on record containing CCTV footage of the camera showing away the tractor and the machine belonging to the complainant. The claim of -State is that one of them was the present petitioner. For the purpose of eliciting information about the truth as well as authenticity of the compromise whereby, the petitioner had undertaken to give a sum of Rs.2.50 lakh to the complainant. Even otherwise, no exceptional or circumstance has been pointed out by the petitioner for grant of pre arrest bail for the purpose of conducting thorough investigation in the , in the considered opinion of this Court, his custodial inter required. Accordingly, no ground has been made out for allowing the petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No M No.19054 of 2025 -3- circumstances for grant of bail, has been made out. Accordingly, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Rival contentions have been heard. accused is alleged to have committed some machine belonging to the complainant on the himself has placed on record a pen drive containing CCTV footage of the camera showing two persons while taking away the tractor and the machine belonging to the complainant. The claim of State is that one of them was the present petitioner. For the about the truth as well as about the compromise whereby, the petitioner had undertaken to give Even otherwise, no exceptional or circumstance has been pointed out by the petitioner for grant of ting thorough investigation in the , in the considered opinion of this Court, his custodial interrogation is no ground has been made out for allowing the petition. at observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No has been made out. to have committed some machine belonging to the complainant on the a pen drive while taking away the tractor and the machine belonging to the complainant. The claim of State is that one of them was the present petitioner. For the the compromise whereby, the petitioner had undertaken to give Even otherwise, no exceptional or circumstance has been pointed out by the petitioner for grant of ting thorough investigation in the rogation is no ground has been made out for allowing the petition. at observations made hereinabove shall Jyoti 2025.04.09 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document