CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----33117 33117 33117 33117 207 207 207 207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Gurcharan Singh State of Punjab CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present Present Present Present: SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) concession of 14.05.2025, under Section Station Rahon, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. 2. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was merely advising the FIR/ complainant to conduct for this purpose. 3. 23.06.2025, the following order was passed: 33117 33117 33117 33117----2025 2025 2025 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM---- Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Gurcharan Singh versus State of Punjab and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate for Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Punjab. Mr. Ashish Nagar, Advocate for respondent No.2 ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. , J. , J. , J. (ORAL) (ORAL) (ORAL) (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. , under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 Rahon, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. Reiterating the submissions made on 23.06.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was merely advising the FIR/ complainant to go abroad and no culpability can be attached to his conduct for this purpose. At this juncture, it would be apposite the following order was passed: “Inter alia, contends that even as per the FIR, an amount of Rs.70,000/- has been transferred by the complainant through Google 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH ----M M M M----33117 33117 33117 33117----2025 2025 2025 2025 Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: August 20 August 20 August 20 August 20,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Singh, DAG Punjab. Mr. Ashish Nagar, Advocate for respondent No.2/ complainant. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.48 dated BNS, 2023, registered at Police Rahon, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. Reiterating the submissions made on 23.06.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was merely advising no culpability can be attached to his At this juncture, it would be apposite to note here that on , contends that even as per the FIR, an amount of has been transferred by the complainant through Google Pay. 1111 ....Petitioner s . of the for grant of dated registered at Police Reiterating the submissions made on 23.06.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was merely advising no culpability can be attached to his here that on , contends that even as per the FIR, an amount of Pay. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.20 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----33117 33117 33117 33117 4. pursuant to the order dated investigation, 5. vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned counsel has further iterated 6. of the record, especially keeping in view the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and his custodial interrogation not State, the interim order dated conditions as enumerated under Section 33117 33117 33117 33117----2025 2025 2025 2025 It is submitted that without admitting the guilt of the petitioner, and order to show his bona-fide, the petitioner is ready to pay an amount Rs.70,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from Notice of motion for 04.08.2025. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before SHO/Investigating Officer as and when called upon to join and in the event of his arrest, he shall be rele furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of subject to the following conditions as the BNSS:- i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required; ii) that the petitioner 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. As undertaken before this Court, the petitioner would demand draft of Rs.70,000/- in the name of complainant within a period of one month from today and would the Investigating Officer, who shall further hand complainant. It is made clear that in case, the is not given to the Investigating Officer complainant within a period of one interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner would be liable to be vacated. The payment of the abovesaid amount of Rs.70,000/ construed as an admission of guilt by the petitioner Learned State counsel (on instructions) has pursuant to the order dated 23.06.2025, the petitioner has investigation, and his custodial interrogation is Learned counsel for respondent No.2/ complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Having heard learned counsel for the parties of the record, especially keeping in view the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and his custodial interrogation not the interim order dated 23.06.2025 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of 2222 It is submitted that without admitting the guilt of the petitioner, and in fide, the petitioner is ready to pay an amount of n a period of one month from today. Notice of motion for 04.08.2025. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer as and when called upon to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of that the petitioner shall make himself available for s and when required; that the petitioner 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. As undertaken before this Court, the petitioner would prepare a in the name of complainant Mamta Devi, month from today and would present the same to the Investigating Officer, who shall further hand over the same to the complainant. It is made clear that in case, the demand draft of Rs.70,000/- is not given to the Investigating Officer prepared in the name of the said month from today, then the present the petitioner would be liable to be The payment of the abovesaid amount of Rs.70,000/- would not be of guilt by the petitioner.” Learned State counsel (on instructions) has submitted that , the petitioner has indeed joined custodial interrogation is not required. respondent No.2/ complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, especially keeping in view the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and his custodial interrogation not sought for by the is made absolute, subject to the (2) of BNSS. 2222 in of the investigation interim bail on his SHO/Investigating Agency, envisaged under Section 482(2) of that the petitioner shall make himself available for that the petitioner 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/her from that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior prepare a Mamta Devi, present the same to over the same to the - of the said month from today, then the present the petitioner would be liable to be not be that joined respondent No.2/ complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned upon perusal of the record, especially keeping in view the factum of the petitioner having sought for by the is made absolute, subject to the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.20 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----33117 33117 33117 33117 7. be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the other incident that involves commission of an offence. 8. cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condi stipulated under Section sufficient cause. 9. be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 10. August 20 August 20 August 20 August 20,,,, 2025 2025 2025 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 33117 33117 33117 33117----2025 2025 2025 2025 This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condi stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS sufficient cause. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. Pending application(s), if any, shall 2025 2025 2025 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 3333 This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 3333 This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be and will not operate in respect of any Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for tion or upon showing any other Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.20 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment