CRM-M-35795-2026(O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 204 CRM-M-35795-2026(O&M) Date of decision: 17.07.2026 Sunil Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Jasinder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, and Mr. Pardeep Sehrawat, Advocate, for the complainant-respondent No.2. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Sunil Kumar, aged 34 years 12 05.06.2026 7 and 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act Vigilance Bureau Range Jalandhar 2. On 06.07.2026, this Court passed the following order:- “1. Present petitions have been filed by the petitioners, seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.12, dated 05.06.2026, under Sections 7 and 7-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Range Jalandhar, District Jalandhar. 2. As per the case of prosecution, a complaint dated RAJAN 2026.07.20 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35795-2026(O&M) - 2 - 29.01.2026 was submitted by Harkamaljit Singh Bhullar, Additional SDO, PSPCL, alleging that while obtaining Store Return Warrants (SRWs) and No Dues Certificate (NDC) pertaining to his Material at Site (MAS) accounts, accused Sunil Kumar, Assistant Lineman (petitioner in CRM-M-35795-2026), demanded and thereafter accepted illegal gratification amounting to Rs.75,000/- through the bank account of Sohan Lal. It is further alleged that accused Daljit Singh, Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) (Auditor) (petitioner in CRM-M-35827-2026), initially demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- and accepted Rs.23,000/-through the bank accounts of his sons, Abhi and Vansh. Thereafter, he allegedly demanded an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification for issuance of the No Dues Certificate (NDC). 3. During the course of preliminary inquiry, a prima facie case was found to be made out against both the petitioners, namely Sunil Kumar and Daljit Singh, with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. However, no incriminating material was found against Hardeep Kumar (XEN), Jyoti Parkash (SDO) and Manisha (Divisional Accountant), though the issue regarding their role was kept open for further investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners (in both the petitions), contends that the alleged transactions pertain to the year 2024, whereas the complaint came to be lodged only in the year 2026, after an unexplained delay of nearly two years. It is argued that entire prosecution case is founded on documentary and electronic evidence, which is already in the possession of the investigating agency, and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted. It is further argued that transfer of Rs.75,000/- to the account of Sunil Kumar through the bank account of RAJAN 2026.07.20 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35795-2026(O&M) - 3 - Sohan Lal cannot be linked to the present allegations, as Sohan Lal is neither the complainant nor shown to have any connection with the alleged occurrence. It is, thus, submitted that allegations are based merely on conjectures and assumptions. 5. With regard to petitioner Daljit Singh, learned counsel submits that there is no material connecting him with the amount alleged to have been deposited in the accounts of his sons, nor there is any cogent evidence to establish the alleged demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. Thus, learned counsel prays that petitioners be granted the concession of anticipatory bail in the present case. 6. Notice of motion. 7. On advance notice, Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate, puts an appearance on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant. 8. Adjourned to 17.07.2026. 9. Let status report be filed by the State, detailing therein the evidence collected against both the petitioners, on or before the next date of hearing. 10. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.” 3. In compliance of the aforementioned order, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has filed a status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Joginder Pal, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau Unit, Kapurthala, dated 16.07.2026, which is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place in the case file. Para 17 of the said status report, in which details of evidence collected against the petitioner have been given, reads as under:- “17. That it is respectfully submitted that in specific RAJAN 2026.07.20 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35795-2026(O&M) - 4 - compliance of the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 06.07.2026 requiring the State to detail the evidence collected against the Petitioner, the answering deponent respectfully submits that the evidence collected against the Petitioner Sunil Kumar (Assistant Lineman) during the inquiry and investigation comprises of the following: “(i) the complaint dated 29.01.2026 and the statement and supplementary statement dated 07.05.2026 of the complainant Harkamaljit Singh Bhullar, detailing the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Petitioner Sunil Kumar for issuing the material return receipt/Store Return Warrant and for cutting and giving the Store Requisition; (ii) the electronic/Google Pay transaction record evidencing transfer of a total sum of Rs. 75,000/- by the complainant, at the asking of the Petitioner, into the ICICI bank account of his friend Sohal Lal i.e. Rs. 40,000/- dated 05.10.2024 and Rs. 35,000/- dated 10.10.2024; (iii) the statement of Sohan Lal recorded during the course of the inquiry/investigation confirming the receipt of the said amount into his ICICI bank account and its passing on at the instance and for the benefit of the Petitioner Sunil Kumar; and iv) the audio recording produced by the complainant together with the Store Return Warrant, the Section Estimate, the documents relating to the approved estimates and the pen drive produced by the complainant during the course of the inquiry.” 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the RAJAN 2026.07.20 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35795-2026(O&M) - 5 - relevant material available on record. 5. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and the material placed on record, the Court found that no substantial reason existed to keep the anticipatory bail petition pending. The Investigating Agency failed to demonstrate any compelling necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioners for the purpose of collecting further material. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held that the petitioners had made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation within two weeks or as and when called by the Investigating Agency, and in the event of their arrest, they were directed to be released on anticipatory bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds and complying with the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 6. With the directions issued here above, present petition stands disposed of. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ( Sanjay Vashisth ) Judge July 17, 2026 Rajan RAJAN 2026.07.20 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document