108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35504-2026 DECIDED ON: 06.07.2026 GURMEJ SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Mr. SS Bhullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.04 dated 25.02.2026 under section 13(1)(C) read with section 13(2) and now section 13(1)(A) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, and offence Under Sections 409, 406, 420, 465,467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC 1860, (corresponding to sections 316(5), 316(2), 318(2), 332(2), 338, 336(3), 341, 61(2) of BNS, 2023), registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Range Amritsar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and no offence of cheating is made out, as petitioner is in cultivating possession of the land in question. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of 24 years in lodging the FIR. It is also contended that there is no material to LAVISHA 2026.07.06 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-35504-2026 -2- substantiate the allegations of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act or of forgery. It is further submitted that petitioner is not involved in any other case and allegations in the present case are primarily documentary in nature, forming part of the revenue record. Therefore, custodial interrogation is not warranted for the purpose of investigation. It is also submitted that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and fully cooperate, if protected from arrest by this Court. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On advance notice, Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appears on behalf of the respondent- State and submits that he has perused the record of the petition, and finds that reliance has been placed by the petitioner much upon anticipatory bail orders dated 20.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-25382-2026 in the case of co-accused Resham Singh (Annexure P-1), and order dated 29.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-31313-2026 filed by co-accused Ranjit Singh (Annexure P-2). 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel, it appears that there is no necessity to keep the present petition pending any more, as submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner have already been considered by the coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting anticipatory bail to co-accused Resham Singh and Ranjit Singh (Annexures P-1 and P-2). Accordingly, present petition can be disposed of, at this stage itself. LAVISHA 2026.07.06 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-35504-2026 -3- Moreover, there is no dispute that other co-accused, as noticed above, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Allegations are largely documentary in nature and are required to be proved on the basis of records, and FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of 24 years. Further, nothing specific has been brought on record, as to who demanded or received any bribe amount from the complainant or the particulars of such alleged payment. These aspects are required to be established by the prosecution for the applicability of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and by placing reliance upon the anticipatory bail orders passed in favour of co-accused Resham Singh and Ranjit Singh, present petition is allowed. 7. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to join the investigation within two weeks from today or as and when called by the investigating officer, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 8. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. LAVISHA 2026.07.06 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-35504-2026 -4- 9. However, it is made clear that the aforesaid concession shall be deemed to be rendered inoperative, in the event, petitioner fails to join the investigation, within the stipulated time, or fails to comply with the terms and conditions, as may be imposed, in accordance with law. 10. With the directions recorded here above, present petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 06.07.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.07.06 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh