1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CRM-M-42867-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.08.2026 Tejbir Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Rajesh Kapila and Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocates for the complainant. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral) This petition for pre-arrest bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.78 dated 17.09.2024, Police Station Qila Lal Singh, Batala District Gurdaspur, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Joga Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that ‘Tejbir Singh’ (the petitioner herein) and his brother ‘Rajbir Singh’ were working as travel agents, and GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.13 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 that they assured him, that his son would be sent to Canada, and that they would arrange visa for him. As per complainant, a sum of Rs.12 lacs was paid by him to the petitioner and his brother ‘Rajbir Singh’. According to complainant, despite receipt of abovementioned money, neither his son was sent to Canada, nor the money has been returned. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. 6. Power of Attorney on behalf of complainant has been filed today. The same be taken on record. 7. Heard. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the benefit of anticipatory bail was accorded to the petitioner, however, the same was withdrawn by virtue of order dated 10.09.2025. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, initially a sum of Rs.5 lacs was returned by ‘Rajbir Singh’ to the complainant, and when the application for anticipatory bail was filed, the matter was referred to mediator, wherein ‘Rajbir Singh’ had undertaken to return the remaining amount of Rs.7 lacs to the complainant. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of abovementioned settlement, the petitioner was not present, but on the pretext GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.13 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 that he was bound by the same undertaking, the benefit of anticipatory bail accorded to the petitioner has been withdrawn. 9. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that when application for anticipatory bail was filed by the petitioner, before the Court of Sessions, the counsel for the petitioner had undertaken that the petitioner would be bound by the same settlement, already taken place between the complainant and ‘Rajbir Singh’. 10. As per learned counsel for the complainant, since the petitioner failed to abide by the abovementioned undertaking, the benefit of anticipatory bail has rightly been withdrawn by the Court of Sessions. While defending the abovementioned order, it has been contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant is the victim of fraud played by the petitioner and his real brother ‘Rajbir Singh’, both of whom are jointly responsible for the repayment of abovementioned money. 10. The record has been perused carefully. 11. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- i. that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.13 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 ii. that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment up to seven years; iii. that as per contents of FIR itself, the dispute between the parties is prima facie a dispute of civil nature, i.e. recovery of money; iv. that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future; v. that no evidence, by custodial interrogation of the petitioner, has to be collected by the Investigating Agency. Thus, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result; vi. that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vii. that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose; viii. that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and ix. that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation. 12. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. 13. In view of above, the present petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is hereby accorded the benefit of anticipatory bail. It is hereby GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.13 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when notice is served upon him, in writing, by the Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS. 14. It is, however, clarified that any observations recorded in the above-mentioned order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 13.08.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.13 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document