CRM-M-30185-2025 -1- 105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30185-2025 DECIDED ON: 28.05.2025 RAJAN KUMAR @ RAJAN .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Bikramjit Singh Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR no. 0063, dated 21.04.2025, under section 318(4),336(3),340 (2) of BNS 2023, registered at police station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. 2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in the FIR as under:- “Subject: Regarding issuing of fake government receipts of dope test. Regarding the subject cited above, it is requested to you that monthly receipts of Dope test have been checked by me, in which 5 government receipts of Rs.1500/-(of Rs.7500/-) have been found fake. The detail of which are as under:- 1. Mehakpreet Singh son of Gurraj Singh, Age- 33 yr/male, CR No. 2400212500021056, Receipt no. 240022240000227/1, Address - Sarawan Bodlan, Mobile no. 98150- MEENU 2025.05.28 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30185-2025 -2- 326242, Jaspreet Singh S/o Jag Singh, Age- 45 yr/male, CR No. 2400212500085895, Receipt no. 240022250000687/1, Address Aspalan, Mobile no. 99887- 80000, 3. Harpal Singh S/o Balwinder Singh, Age- 32 yr/Male, CR No. 2400212500063762, Receipt no. 240022250000352/1, Address - Sokhna Ablu, Mobile No 95719- 47717, 4. Rupinder Kaur W/o Sukhdev Singh, Age- 52/female, CR No. 2400212500063781, Receipt no. 240022250000358/1, Address - Tappa Khera, Mobile No. 98724-78968, 5. Manvir Singh son of Rajinder Singh, Age 47/Male, CR No. 2400212500047339, Receipt no. 240022240000247/1, Address-Danewala, Mobile No.-78892- 65102. It is a big conspiracy with the Government. That government receipts are being brought by some conspirators by getting these issued from outside, due to which the government is suffering a huge loss. This is a big scam. After conducting investigation, a police case may kindly be registered them. Thanking you. Your faithfully Sd/- Ruchi Computer Operator, Civil Hospital Malout. A copy of the said letter was sent to the office of Civil Surgeon Shri Muktsar Sahib, who vide his Office letter No.2342 dated 17.2.25 sent a letter to the office of Hon'ble Superintendent of Police, Shri Muktsar Sahib. The contents of which are as under:- "Office of Civil Surgeon Sri Muktsar Sahib, Tel. No. 01633-264792 (O) e-mail-id: nhmsms@gmail.com, No. P.A.20257 Dated ---To, Hon'ble Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh, Subject: Regarding issuance of fake government receipts of dope test. Reference: Senior Medical Regarding Officer Inch., Civil Hospital Sri Muktsar Sahib's letter No. Special/129-131 dated 3.2.25. Regarding the above cited subject, you are informed that Senior Medical Officer Inch, Civil Hospital Shri Muktsar Sahib through the letter under reference has been informed this office that the 5 government receipts of dope test have been found to be fake (photocopy of the letter is attached) due to which the government is facing financial losses. Enclosed. This is for your information and for necessary action. Sd/-Civil Surgeon, Shri Muktsar Sahib Endst. No. 2342 Dated 17.02.2025. Copy sent to:- 1. Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib, copy-1 enclosed for taking necessary action. Sd/- Civil Surgeon, Sri Muktsar Sahib Dated 17.2.25, 4599/C Dated 18.02.2025, Senior Superintendent of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib, 265-R-SP(INV) SMS Dated 18.2.2025, 395-R/DSP/MLT, ” 3. Contention On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the amount in question, which is alleged MEENU 2025.05.28 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30185-2025 -3- to have been misused by the petitioner on account of preparing forged receipts stands deposited with the authorities on 05.02.2025, which are on record at Annexure P-2 to P-6. It is argued that the said deposit is even prior to the registration of the FIR. Notice of motion. On behalf of the State/complainant On the asking of Court, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab. , accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State. He does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and rather candidly submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. 4. Analysis Be that as it may, having given a considerable thought to the submissions made hereinabove especially to the fact that admittedly the amount in question stands deposited with the authorities concerned, as is evident from the perusal of the Annexures P-2 to P-6, this Court is of the considered view that there is no valid or cogent reason to deny the bail to the present petitioner, wherein he has bona fide intentions and is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the Investigating Agency in time. 5. Relief:- Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which are reproduced below:- MEENU 2025.05.28 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30185-2025 -4- ‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.’ However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within a period of one week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stands cancelled. In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands allowed. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 28.05.2025 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MEENU 2025.05.28 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document