IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46308-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 22.8.2025 Gurpreet Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Kartik Patial, Advocate and Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

1. Prayer The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 101 dated 8.7.2025, registered under Section 316(2), 318(4) of BNS at Police Station Anadpur Sahib District Rupnagar Punjab.

2 Co n tention On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the FIR, it is admitted fact that allegedly Rs.34,00,000/- as an total amount was given by the complainant to the petitioner. Thereafter, during investigation, a compromise has been effected between the parties and the matter was settled for Rs.15.05,000/-

and Rs.6,60,000/- has already been paid to the complainant.

Notice of motion.

On behalf of the State/ complainant On the asking of Court, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State. He however, submits that in view of serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. He prays for dismissal of the present petition and submits that custodial interrogation is required.

3. Analysis It is categorically stated before the Court that the balance amount of Rs.8,45,000/- would be paid in equal monthly instalment of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant on or before the 7^th date of every month. Also in view of the compromise effected between both the parties, this Court finds no justifiable reason to deny the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as he has shown his willingness and bona fide to return the balance amount.

In the light of above undertaking, this Court do not find any merit in the petition and to decline the anticipatory bail. In case, the petitioner fails in his commitment made before this Court, the respondent-State would be at liberty to file for cancellation of bail.

4. Relief:-

Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which are reproduced below:-

‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.’

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within a period of one week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stands cancelled.

In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands allowed.

Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)

22.08.2025 JUDGE Ramandeep Singh

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No