CRM-M-43405-2025 -1- 106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43405-2025 DECIDED ON: 18.08.2025 GURDEEP SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Ramandeep Singh Gill, 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. 0696 dated 02.09.2024 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Shahbad, District Kurukshetra. 2 Contention On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that a specific role has been attributed to him without any basis. It is further submitted that the petitioner is neither directly nor indirectly a beneficiary of the alleged sum of Rs. 42 lakhs, which is said to have been paid in connection with obtaining a visa and completing other formalities for traveling abroad. He undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready and willing to join the investigation. He asserts that co-accused persons MEENU 2025.08.18 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43405-2025 -2- namely Anu Thakur and Pawan have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 09.10.2024 passed in CRM-M-50817-2024 & CRM-M-50806- 2024 (Annexures P-3 & P-4 respectively). Notice of motion. On behalf of the State/complainant On the asking of Court, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. AG. Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State. He does not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. On the contrary, he fairly concedes that the petitioner does not appear to be a beneficiary of the amount in question. 3. Analysis Be that as it may, having given due consideration to the submissions advanced, particularly to the fact that admittedly the petitioner is not a beneficiary to the amount of Rs.42,00,000/- and co-accused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 09.10.2024 passed in CRM-M- 50817-2024 & CRM-M-50806-2024 (Annexures P-3 & P-4 respectively) 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 his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to the MEENU 2025.08.18 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43405-2025 -3- satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which are reproduced below:- ‘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) 18.08.2025 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No MEENU 2025.08.18 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document