229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22694-2025 Date of Decision:14.07.2025 Avtar Singh …Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and Anr. …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Karan Puggal, Advocate with Mr. Raghav Puggal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate for the respondent No.2/complainant. ***** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.51, dated 19.03.2025, registered under Sections 420,465,467,468,471 and 120-B of IPC, Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga, Annexure P-1. 2. While granting the concession of interim anticipatory bail by this Court on 30.04.2025, the following contentions were noticed by this Court and the same have been reproduced below:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner con- tends that the petitioner himself is a victim in the present case as he had purchased the car in question from a person namely Narinder Singh @ Sagar by paying him a sum of Rs.6 lakh. He further submits that HITESH 2025.07.14 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-22694-2025 -2 even Narinder Singh had purchased the car from some other person. Learned counsel next contends that while selling the car in question to the complainant, the petitioner had handed over all the necessary documents along with Form No.35 to Amrik Singh (complainant) as he had received these documents from Narinder Singh @ Sagar. Even the petitioner had submitted a complaint dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, mentioning the fact that he had been cheated by Narinder Singh, but the police did not take any action against the accused. Learned counsel also contends that the entire case is based on documentary evidence and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions and further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation may not be required. 4. Learned State counsel also submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for further investigation. 5. A status report by way of an affidavit of Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga has been filed on behalf of respondent-State and the same is taken on record. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. HITESH 2025.07.14 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-22694-2025 -3 8. In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the parties, the interim order dated 30.04.2025 is made absolute. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 14.07.2025 JUDGE hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HITESH 2025.07.14 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh