IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Baljeet Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 11.12.2025 Date of Uploading: 11.12.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.118 dated 16.06.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 408 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Maqboolpura, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR pertains to defrauding a person namely Surjit Singh, resident of 22/12 Kalyan Singh Road, near DAV College, Amritsar, who operates a family fruit-trading business under the names Amar Singh & Sons and Gurkirat Trading Company at Valla Fruit Mandi, was cheated and defrauded. The complainant alleged that he had appointed Manjit Singh @ Mani, son of Gurmukh Singh, to assist in overseeing and managing the business. Manjit Singh initially assured him that he would maintain proper accounts and conduct all business dealings honestly. Relying on these assurances, the complainant gradually reduced his supervision of the work of Manjit Singh. However, the complainant later discovered that Manjit Singh had misappropriated substantial sums of money received from various buyers. He consistently misled the complainant by claiming that payments from buyers were still pending but in-fact he had already collected the money in cash and unlawfully kept it. These facts were confirmed when the complainant personally verified transactions with the several parties. Further inquiry from the complainant revealed that this fraudulent activity and criminal conspiracy involved not only Manjit Singh but also his wife Jobanjit Kaur, his brother Baljit Singh (the petitioner), Baldev Singh, son of Kartar Singh from Fatehgarh Churia, and possibly other associates. The complainant further alleged that portions of the embezzled funds were deposited into their respective bank accounts. Additional investigation is required to trace other related accounts, assets, ₹

and investments. On 02.04.2024, an amount of 27,900 received from a Dinanagar party for goods dispatched by the complainant’s firm was collected by Manjit Singh but never deposited into the account of the Firm. Upon the exposure of these fraudulent activities, the accused individuals allegedly issued threats to the complainant and his family members. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, instant FIR has been registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as the allegations raised against the petitioner are false and mala fide. According to learned counsel, a bare reading of the FIR in question shows that the petitioner has been named solely on account of being the brother of co-

accused Manjit Singh, who was employed in the firm of the complainant. Learned counsel has further iterated that the there is no entrustment of property to the petitioner which is an essential ingredient of Section 408 IPC. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was neither an employee nor in any fiduciary relationship with the complainant, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for criminal breach of trust. Learned counsel has emphasized that, at best, the dispute is between the complainant and Manjit Singh regarding the conduct of business. Furthermore, no money has ever been transferred to the petitioner from any buyer of the firm and nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further contended that the FIR has been registered after an unexplained delay of one year which itself indicates that the case is an afterthought and has been fabricated. It has