CRM-M-40759 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (104) MANJINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 to 4 vide orders dated 25.03.2026 and 14.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran (Annexures P No.52 dated 27.02.2026, registered under Secti Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Sections 420 and 120 Indian Penal Code), at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran. 2. the learned trial petitioner as well as the material available on record, which clearly demonstrates that the accused had played a fraud upon the petitioner. He further submitted that there is every likelihood of resp -1- 40759-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MANJINDER SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab. **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 to 4 vide orders dated 25.03.2026 and 14.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran (Annexures P-5, P-6 and P No.52 dated 27.02.2026, registered under Secti Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Sections 420 and 120 Indian Penal Code), at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the material available on record, which clearly demonstrates that the accused had played a fraud upon the petitioner. He further submitted that there is every likelihood of resp IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40759-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 27.07.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondents ALOK JAIN Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab. The present petition has been filed seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 to 4 vide orders dated 25.03.2026 and 14.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions 6 and P-7, respectively), in FIR No.52 dated 27.02.2026, registered under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code), at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Court failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the material available on record, which clearly demonstrates that the accused had played a fraud upon the petitioner. He further submitted that there is every likelihood of respondents No.2 to 4 27.07.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondents the anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 to 4 vide orders dated 25.03.2026 and 14.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions 7, respectively), in FIR ons 318(4) and 61(2) of the B of the Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Court failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the material available on record, which clearly demonstrates that the accused had played a fraud upon the petitioner. He ondents No.2 to 4 MANJU 2026.07.29 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40759 absconding or evading the process of law, particularly in view of the fact that respondent No.2 had earlier been deported from the United Kingdom. 3. the record. 4. question pertain to the period from 2018 to 2021. It is also not disputed that the petitioner's son and respondent No.2 had entered into a paper/contract marriage solely with the object of facilitat 5. Court has duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case while granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the private respondents. No material has been respondents have misused the concession of bail, attempted to influence the witnesses, tampered with the evidence, or violated any of the conditions imposed by the Court. 6. illegality, or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. 7. July 27, 2026 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: -2- 40759-2026 (O&M) absconding or evading the process of law, particularly in view of the fact that respondent No.2 had earlier been deported from the United Kingdom. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused Admittedly, the entire set of allegations and the transactions in question pertain to the period from 2018 to 2021. It is also not disputed that the petitioner's son and respondent No.2 had entered into a paper/contract marriage solely with the object of facilitating settlement abroad. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the learned trial Court has duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case while granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the private respondents. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court to demonstrate that the respondents have misused the concession of bail, attempted to influence the witnesses, tampered with the evidence, or violated any of the conditions imposed by the Court. In the present case, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. July 27, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No absconding or evading the process of law, particularly in view of the fact that respondent No.2 had earlier been deported from the United Kingdom. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused ly, the entire set of allegations and the transactions in question pertain to the period from 2018 to 2021. It is also not disputed that the petitioner's son and respondent No.2 had entered into a paper/contract ing settlement abroad. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the learned trial Court has duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case while granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the private respondents. No brought to the notice of this Court to demonstrate that the respondents have misused the concession of bail, attempted to influence the witnesses, tampered with the evidence, or violated any of the conditions this Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present if any, stands disposed of. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE absconding or evading the process of law, particularly in view of the fact Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused ly, the entire set of allegations and the transactions in question pertain to the period from 2018 to 2021. It is also not disputed that the petitioner's son and respondent No.2 had entered into a paper/contract A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the learned trial Court has duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case while granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the private respondents. No brought to the notice of this Court to demonstrate that the respondents have misused the concession of bail, attempted to influence the witnesses, tampered with the evidence, or violated any of the conditions this Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present MANJU 2026.07.29 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document