CRM-M-24587-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 214 CRM-M-24587-2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2025 Gurmukh Singh and another ...Peoners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the peoners. Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta.on Sec.ons 70 05.05.2023 Makhu, District Ferozepur 406, 120-B IPC 1. The peoners apprehending arrest in the FIR caponed above have come up before this Court under Secon 482 of Bharaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking ancipatory bail. 2. As per paragraph 18 of the bail peon and as per paragraph 9-E of the reply, the peoner- Jorawar Singh has clean antecedents and peoner-Gurmukh Singh has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta.on 1. 39 27.05.2017 306 IPC Mallanwala, Dis>. Ferozepur 3. The facts and allegaons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: “3. That brief facts of the case are that complainant moved an applicaon before the SSP, Moga with the allegaons that he alongwith Mela Singh had purchased the land measuring 26 Kanals 16 Marlas bearing khewat no.94 situated in the area of village Khadoor, Tehsil Zira in equal share. In said land complainant and Mela Singh had established a brick kiln under the name and style of M/s Rajinderpal BKO Khdoor. In said brick kiln. Complainant was partner to the extent of 35%, Mela Singh was partner to the extent of 35% share, Sohan Lal was having 15% share and 15% share. A5er death of Mela Singh, his sons Jorawar Singh, 1 JYOTI 2025.05.19 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24587-2025 Gursewak Singh and Gurmukh Singh had taken the forcible possession of said brick kiln and they are not allowing the complainant to entered into the brick kiln nor they are providing the accounts detail to the complainant. In connivance of each other, accused had also fabricated one partnership deed in the year of 2016-17 and in the Income tax return they had shown the share of complainant 50% and share of Jorawar Singh 50% and they have also shown Sohan Lal and Nishan Chand as rered. In the year of 2018-19 accused had shown the partners of firm as, complainant 35% share, Jorawar Singh 35% share, Gurmukh Singh and Gursewak Singh 15% each. Whereas complainant had not signed any such document. Complainant further menoned that accused had also taken the forcible possession of 3 tractors i.e. PB05W-7961, PB47D- 8336, PB05P-8463 and one JCB No. PB05Q9571. Accused are threatening the complainant. 4.That on the basis of said applicaon, enquiry was conducted by the then DSP, Zira and during enquiry, it is found that accused in connivance with each other with malafide intenon to play fraud with the complainant had commiAed the embezzlement of joint material lying in the brick kiln as well as vehicles of the complainant. A5er compleon of enquiry, enquiry officer recommended to register the case u/s 406/120-B IPC and also observed that allegaons regarding filing of income tax returns on fake documents should be verified during the invesgaon. 5. That a5er compleon of enquiry, the enquiry officer had submiAed his report before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur. However, on said enquiry report, the SSP, Ferozepur called the comments from the SP (Inv), Ferozepur. 6. That a5er considering the enquiry report and facts on the file, the SP (Inv), Ferozepur, agreed with the enquiry report of the then DSP, Zira, and submiAed his report before the SSP, Ferozepur. On said report as well as comments, the SSP, Ferozepur called the comments from SP (Operaon), Ferozepur. A5er considering the enquiry report and facts on the file, the SP (Operaon), Ferozepur, agreed with the enquiry report and therea5er the instant case has been registered.” 4. Counsel for the peoners submits that there is one JCB which was although registered in the name of the complainant but they had paid the installments and they would have no objecon if police take steps to recover the same. The peoners’ counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condions and contends that pre-trial 2 JYOTI 2025.05.19 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24587-2025 incarceraon would cause an irreversible injusce to the peoners and their family. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following porons of the reply, which read as follows: “9.B. The Evidence against peoner: There is sufficient oral and documentary evidence against the peoners. The malafide intenon of peoners is proved from the fact that they have furnished the income tax returns by changing the share of the complainant. C. Role of peoners: During invesgaon/enquiry number of witnesses joined and it is found that peoners have embezzled the material and machinery lying on said brick kiln.” REASONING: 7. Dispute is between the partners and now qua the property of partnership firm. Given the undertaking by counsel for the peoners that they would have no objecon to return the JCB, as such, they are entled to bail. 8. Pre-trial incarceraon should not be a replica of post-convicon sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecuon or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of ancipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jusfy custodial interrogaon or pre- trial incarceraon. 9. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegaons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jusfiability for custodial interrogaon or the pre-trial incarceraon at this stage. Without commenng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons menoned above, the peoners make a case for bail. 10. Given above, provided the peoners are not required in any other case, the peoners shall be released on ancipatory bail in the FIR caponed above subject to furnishing bonds to the sasfacon of the Arresng Officer, and if the ma>er is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sasfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 3 JYOTI 2025.05.19 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24587-2025 11. While furnishing a personal bond, the peoners shall menon the following personal idenficaon details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the a>esng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 12. This order is subject to the peoners’ complying with the following terms. 13. The peoners are directed to join the invesgaon within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Invesgator. The peoners shall be in deemed custody for Secon 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Secon 23 of BSA, 2023. The peoners shall join the invesgaon as and when called by the Invesgang Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the invesgaon at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecuon will be open to seeking cancellaon of the bail. During the invesgaon, the peoners shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 14. The peoners shall abide by all statutory bond condions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The peoners shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 15. In case the Invesgator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Staon arraigns another secon of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new secon prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the secons menoned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added secon(s). However, suppose the newly inserted secons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the secons menoned above; then, in that case, the Invesgator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the peoners noce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 16. This bail is condi onal, and the founda onal condi on is that if the pe oners indulge in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica on for cancella on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 17. Any observaon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the 4 JYOTI 2025.05.19 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-24587-2025 case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 18. A cerfied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Peoners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a>est it to be a true copy. If the a>esng officer wants to verify its authencity, such an officer can also verify its authencity and may download and use the downloaded copy for a>esng bonds. 19. Pe..on allowed in terms menoned above. All pending applicaons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 15.05.2025 Jyo-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 5 JYOTI 2025.05.19 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.