Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 77153 (PNJ)

NAVPREET SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/36310/2025 · 2025-07-14

Sandeep Moudgil

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-36310-2025 -1- 102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36310-2025 DECIDED ON: 14.07.2025 NAVPREET SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Gagandeep Singh Bajwa, 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. 70 dated 15.05.2025 under Sections 303(2) (added later on 317(2) of BNS), registered at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar City (Annexure P-1). 2 Contention On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the prosecution's version, the allegation against the petitioner is that he received stolen property, namely four bags of flour valued at Rs. 1200/-. It is contended that the petitioner was unaware that the said flour was stolen and had purchased the same in good faith. Learned MEENU 2025.07.14 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36310-2025 -2- counsel, on instructions, also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to appear before the investigating agency as and when required. 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 could not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Analysis Be that as it may, upon due consideration of the submissions advanced, and particularly in view of the fact that the allegation against the petitioner is limited to the purchase of stolen property, which he is stated to have acquired in good faith without knowledge of its stolen nature added with the fact that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedents, as he is not involved in any other case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. In the light of above, 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. 4. Relief:- Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to her joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to her satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which are reproduced below:- MEENU 2025.07.14 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36310-2025 -3- ‘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) 14.07.2025 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No MEENU 2025.07.14 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document