IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Maninder Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conference)

Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0077 dated 23.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC at Police Station Saadar Amritsar, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.

2. The genesis of the FIR arises from the statement of complainant Jarnail Singh, who alleged that during the COVID period, he performed volunteer duty at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, where he came in contact with PC Maninder Singh (petitioner herein), who is currently serving at Harmandir Sahib. As per complainant, he served for around 08 months and during which he submitted a form for the appointment of his son namely Manpreet Singh in the Punjab Railways. In this regard, the complainant alleged that the accused Maninder Singh (petitioner herein) assured him that he could arrange the job but demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Subsequently, the accused Maninder Singh arranged for the medical examination of the son of the complainant at Guru Nanak Hospital and also took the complainant and his son to the Home Guard Officer, Chandigarh for joining; however, the application could not be traced there. Thereafter, the aforesaid accused took them to Jalandhar where the complainant found the application bearing the signature of one Shashipal. At that time, the son of the complainant was provided with a uniform belt (No.3046), shoes and a badge. Subsequently, the accused Maninder Singh demanded an additional sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant, claiming that he had arranged the appointment of his son as Head Constable. As per the complainant, he paid the accused Maninder Singh total sum of Rs.5,48,400/-. The money was mostly transferred to his bank account while Rs.5200/- for medical expenses and Rs.1750/- for the ID card were paid in cash. It was further alleged by the complainant that after receiving the aforesaid amount, the accused Maninder Singh neither arranged for the appointment of his son as Head Constable nor returned the money. Upon visiting the address which was given by the accused Maninder Singh, the complainant found that he did not reside in village Shankarkala, as claimed, but is staying at his in-laws house in Khairabad, Airport Road. On these set of allegations, instant FIR has been registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence as alleged is made out against him. Learned counsel has further iterated that the even if the contents of the FIR are taken on their face value, the allegations at best give rise to a civil dispute with respect to recovery of money which has been given a criminal colour. Learned counsel has further submitted that the FIR does not specify any particular date or year regarding the alleged payments which show the mala fide intention of the complainant. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was never associated with the investigation nor summoned prior to registration of the case which demonstrates that the FIR has been registered without due inquiry. Learned counsel asserts that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR are entirely baseless and devoid of any credible or cogent material. According to learned counsel, in the absence of substantive and incomplete material, the entire prosecution narrative is nothing but an abuse of process. It has been further argued that there is no need for custodial interrogation