IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

288 CRM-M-45179-2025 Date of Decision : 24.09.2025 JANG BAHADUR @ JANGBAHADUR SINGH ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, has been filed by petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.125 dated 13.06.2025, registered against him at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural, for the commission of offences punishable u/s 465, 466, 468, 471 IPC.

2. Relevant facts as can be inferred from the documents on record are noticed hereinbelow:-

Criminal proceedings in the present case were initiated against the petitioner on the ground that while having remained posted at Police Station Jandiala (Amritsar Rural), he recommended for release of convict, namely, Daljit Singh on ‘Parole’, who was undergoing imprisonment of 20 years, in case bearing FIR No. 184 dated 21.12.2015, under Sections 302, 449, 380, 341, 120-B IPC at Police Station Jandiala Guru. Allegations against petitioner are that he without bringing it to the knowledge of SHO Upkar Singh, attested an application and forged signature of SHO Upkar Singh. When the relevant documents were sent to the office of Superintendent Jails, Jandiala, an objection was raised. SHO Upkar Singh, when confronted, denied having signed the said application, thereafter, the matter was thoroughly enquired and a formal case vide FIR No.125 dated 13.06.2025, u/s 465, 466, 468, 471 IPC was registered against the present petitioner.

3. Apprehending his arrest, present petitioner had moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in terms of order dated 06.08.2025. Aggrieved of the said order, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The fact that FIR was lodged almost 05 years after the alleged commission of offence is indicative of false implication of the petitioner, who has simply been made scapegoat due to official rivalry. Further as per learned counsel, even the FSL report dated 30.01.2024, does not support the case of the prosecution, for no opinion has been expressed that the signature of the petitioner match with the signature on the relevant file/document, vide which convict - Daljit had applied for releasing him on parole. Learned counsel next submits that the present case is based on documentary evidence, for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not needed, as nothing is to be recovered from him. Being an honest hard working, dedicated police official, deserves to be protected by law in this frivolous case framed against him, by extending him the concession of pre-arrest bail. Moreso, when petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer. With these submissions, learned counsel prays for allowing the present petition.

5. Status Report dated 21.09.2025 by way of affidavit of Inspector Mukhtiar Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Jandiala, Amritsar (Rural), has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and his role has also been highlighted. The manner in which the offence was committed, clearly depicts that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was posted as MHC of Police Station Jandiala, Amritsar (Rural) and each of such files were routed through him, instead of putting the application of parole of convict-Diljit Singh @ Sulakhan Singh before the SHO Upkar Singh, he (petitioner) recommended the same and forged his (SHO’s) signatures. Sensing som