1 CRM-M-37983-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 CRM-M-37983-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.09.2026 SIMRANJIT SINGH PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate and Ms. Parul Sarvar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.177 dated 08.05.2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail. 2. One Rohit Garg s/o Ravinder Kumar filed a complaint with the police stating that he met Simranjit Singh in the year 2022, who represented that the was a government employee and facilitated investments in Tradecops Financial Service/Tradecops Private Limited. He allured them to invest money on the assurance that the money would fetch high returns and would double within a year. He also showed him documents evidencing his position as Manager at Tradecops Financial Service/Tradecops Private Limited and claimed that the company had all necessary approvals from the government, regarding which also, papers were shown. He arranged a video call via his phone with the Company’s Director, Deepak Thakur, who during the call assured high profits, if money was invested in the Company. Simranjit Singh, thus continuously motivated him to invest money of his friends in the Company. His wife Ravinder Kaur, also similarly represented and assured full HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.09.03 20:08 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRM-M-37983-2026 (O&M) responsibility. Believing their representations, he and his friends handed over to Simranjit Singh and his wife Ravinder Kaur, sums of money for investment. Thereafter, he and his friends continued to invest various amounts at different intervals during the period 2023-2024. Simranjit Singh and his wife Ravinder Kaur continuously assured them of good returns saying that his sister Kawaljeet Kaur and his son Meharban Singh had also joined Tradecops Financial Service/Tradecops Private Limited. The money was collected by Kawaljeet Kaur and Meharban Singh in the presence of Simranjit Singh from his friends representing that the amount would be invested through his ID. Thus, a total sum of ₹1,00,00,000/- was invested with them and as guarantee, Simranjit Singh issued duly signed cheque of ₹1,00,00,000/-. After a few days, he learnt that Simranjit Singh and his family had collected money from several other persons on the pretext of investment but were not returning it. When he contacted them and made demand for the money, they put off the matter and later refused to return the money. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was vague and did not disclose any specific details regarding the alleged investment, what amount was invested, on which date and what was the mode of payment. Identity of the friends of complainant was also not disclosed and bald allegations of investment of ₹1,00,00,000/- were made. Deepak Thakur, the main culprit was at large and petitioner had been falsely involved. All family members of petitioner, his wife, sister and nephew had been enlarged on bail. In fact, petitioner himself was an investor. Three days prior to registration of FIR, complainant’s mother and brother filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Tradecops Financial Service/Tradecops Private Limited and Deepak Thakur, wherein, petitioner was not even named. Entire money was invested with Tradecops Financial HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.09.03 20:08 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CRM-M-37983-2026 (O&M) Service/Tradecops Private Limited. No money was given to petitioner. FIR was lodged after unexplained delay of one year, as a pressure tactic, to spoil the career of petitioner, who was a Wireless Operator in the Police Department. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner was unnecessary as nothing was to be recovered from him. Petitioner was a law-abiding citizen with clean antecedents and was ready and willing to join investigation. 4. Learned State counsel has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, submitting that during the course of investigation, statements of as many as 16 witnesses, who were duped and cheated by the petitioner were recorded. Petitioner was found to be maintaining three bank accounts. The statement of salary account of petitioner, maintained in HDFC Bank showed several entries of transfer of money to Tradecops Financial Service/Tradecops Private Limited via UPI from 16.06.2023 to 26.04.2024 totaling ₹37,760/-. In addition thereto, transactions of ₹3,55,87,374/- were also made during the period 01.01.2022 to 15.05.2025. In the joint account of petitioner and his wife also, in Punjab National Bank, several entries of transfer of money to Tradecops Financial Service/Tradecops Private Limited via UPI were reflected totaling ₹1,59,440/-. Besides, transactions of ₹3,98,99,200/- from 01.01.2022 to 15.05.2025 were also reflected in the said joint account. In yet another account maintained by petitioner in Kotak Mahindra Bank, UPI transactions by petitioner to Tradecops Financial Service/Tradecops Private Limited were revealed amounting to ₹14,160/- along with other transactions of ₹5,72,66,402/- during the period 01.01.2022 to 15.05.2025. It was pointed out that petitioner was a Constable in Punjab Police and was evading arrest. He had been placed under suspension and dismissed from service from 27.07.2026. His custodial interrogation was HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.09.03 20:08 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 CRM-M-37983-2026 (O&M) necessary for just and proper investigation, to trace the money trail and recover crucial evidence. 5. Petitioner, at the relevant time was working as Constable in Punjab Police. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency has found unexplained transactions of crores of rupees in his accounts. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative to trace the money trial, to identify the proceeds of the crime, to facilitate recovery of the defrauded amount and recover crucial electronic evidence. Person of the petitioner is required to discover the manner in which the offence was committed, to reveal the identity of others involved in the offence and to discover the modus operandi. Grant of anticipatory bail at this crucial stage would severely affect and impede the process of investigation and must be avoided. The prayer for anticipatory bail is, thus, declined. 6. The petition stands dismissed. 7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 03.09.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.09.03 20:08 I agree to specified portions of this document