IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48353-2025 Decided on: 23.03.2026 Jaswinder Singh …...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Ms. Shefali, Advocate for Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG Punjab ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.40, dated 28.02.2025, under Sections 379-B, 34 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

2. On 01.09.2025, following order was passed:

“(i) *** *** *** ***

(ii) Notice of motion.

(iii) On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts an appearance on behalf of the respondent/State.

(iv) As per the allegations made in the FIR, complainant has stated that he and his wife were travelling together in their Fortuner car to Delhi with the intention of meeting their younger son, Lachhman Singh, and handing over a sum of Rs.27.5 lakhs in cash, as earnest money for the purchase of a house.

(v) In this context, two primary questions arise for consideration before this Court. First, whether any investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer regarding the source and arrangement of the Rs.27.5 lakhs in cash, particularly in proximity to the alleged snatching incident. Second, whether any agreement to sell had been executed by the prospective purchaser, i.e., Lachhman Singh (the complainant's son), in Delhi in relation to any residential property.

(vi) List again on 29.10.2025.

(vii) Let the Court be apprised of the aforementioned facts on the next date of hearing.

(viii) Meanwhile, petitioner shall not be arrested. However, issue of joining of investigation by the petitioner would be examined on the next date of hearing, after reviewing the status report, which is yet to be filed by learned State counsel .”

3. As per allegations in FIR, when complainant alongwith his wife was travelling together in their Fortuner car to Delhi to meet their son alongwith cash amount of Rs. 27.5 lacs, petitioner-Jaswinder Singh snatched the amount from the complainant. It has further been clarified by the complainant that said amount was being taken by them for the purpose of buying house for their son Lachhman Singh in Delhi.

4. In the status report also, it is admitted position that infact the complainant-Raghbir Singh was running business in the name of M/s Raghbir Jewellers, Diamond, Gold, Silver & Birth Stone at Bathinda, and the amount was generated through the said business. However, regarding any written agreement of sale in regard to the purchase of the house etc at Delhi by son of the complainant, it is answered in the status report that no writing or any scribe or agreement to purchase any house was found executed.

5. In view of the aforesaid factual position, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there being verbal allegation of snatching of an amount of Rs. 27,50,000/- in cash, same requires to be proved beyond doubt by the complainant during the course of trial. The allegations infact are false, because in actual petitioner had purchased one buffalo and one cow from the complainant, and for which an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- was to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant.

6. There is no denial that parties were already known to each other. Whether allegations of snatching of the amount of cash is false or true would require adducing of evidence before Court, including the source of accumulation of amount on day of incident and the reason why it was being carried alongwith.

7. In the totality of circumstances and contentions recorded in the order dated 01.09.2025, this Court finds it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.

8. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to join