IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38640-2025 Decided on: 24.03.2026 Jagpreet Singh …...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Vivek Baghla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab Mr. Arshdeep Singh Sivia, Advocate for the complainant.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Present Second petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Name & FIR Date Section(s) Police District age of No. Station Petitioner (s)

Jagpreet 0186 15.11.2024 408, 420, 467, 468, Moti Police Singh, aged 471, 472, 473, 120-B Nagar Commissione about 45 IPC rate, years Ludhiana

2. FIR in the present case was registered on 15.11.2024, and the trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail on 04.12.2024. Petitioner has stated in paragraph No. 17 of the present petition that the first anticipatory bail application, i.e., CRM-M-64690-

2024, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.03.2025.

As regards the filing of the second anticipatory bail petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that the factum of deposit ₹

of the total amount of 2,07,61,898/- by the petitioner into the account of the complainant company could not be properly brought to the notice of the Court in the first anticipatory bail petition. Consequently, the said petition was withdrawn. However, due to an inadvertent error, counsel failed to seek permission to file a fresh petition.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on

03.11.2025, the following was recorded:

“1. xxx

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that petitioner is a transporter and operates a transport firm under the name and style of M/s Bharat Indian Road Trailer Corporation at Transport Nagar, Ludhiana. Petitioner used to provide transportation services by making vehicles available to third parties for loading and unloading their goods as per their requirements. In the present case, such services were provided to the firm M/s Patanjali Parivahan Private Limited upon their request, and this facility has been extended for several years.

3. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was deposited in the petitioner’s bank account, which has already been returned to the complainant. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted until the allegations are established by the prosecution beyond doubt. Moreover, petitioner is ready to join the investigation and fully cooperate, if protected from arrest by this Court. Thus, prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent – State, and seeks some time to file status report in the matter.

6. It is noticed by the Court that FIR in the present case was registered on 15.11.2024, and anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below on 04.12.2024. However, the concerned Investigating Officer has not deemed it necessary to arrest the petitioner for the reasons best known to him, and has instead, given the petitioner ample time of approximately ten months to file the present petition.

7. List again on 21.01.2026, to enable learned State counsel to file a status report, detailing the reasons why the Investigating Officer has not taken action at the earliest, in accordance with law, after registration of the criminal case against the accused persons.

8. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction