IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: October 06, 2025 Paramdeep Singh Lotey @ Mandeep Singh Lotey @ Vicky Lotey ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Satya Dev Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Jeevan Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner (presence marked through video-conferencing). Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0138 dated 08.08.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), registered at Police Station Dugri, District Ludhiana.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant, namely, Shubham alleged that he had purchased a vehicle make Mahindra XUV bearing No.PB-10-HE-2054 for a sum of Rs.5.50 Lacs and had also transferred a sum of Rs.30,000/- in accounts of the petitioner and co- accused, namely, Kuldeep Singh, but the petitioner handed over to him a forged registration certificate bearing his address, but depicting the name of someone else. Thereafter, on 09.09.2024, both the accused had taken the car of complainant, but did not return it. As per the prosecution case, the aforesaid car, was, in fact, owned by one Prabhjot Singh who had sold it to Amanpreet Singh for a sum of Rs.90,000/- along with liability to pay the pending installments on the car. However, the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused, namely, Kuldeep Singh prepared forged documents, including affidavit of owner, Prabhjot Singh, a clearance certificate issued by the bank and the registration certificate. The original owner Prabhjot Singh had also moved a separate application to police, in this regard.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that there is nothing on record to show the complicity of the petitioner in committing the offence in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that in fact, a criminal colour has been given, by the complainant with the help of police authorities, to a case, which otherwise is a monetary civil dispute. Learned counsel has also iterated that there is nothing to be recovered from the petitioner, and the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. On advance service of copy of petition, learned State counsel appears and has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner, along with his co-accused, has defrauded the complainant on the pretext of sale of vehicle in question against which, they extracted an amount to the tune of Rs.5.25 lakhs in cash apart from receiving Rs.30,000/- digitally to their account. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. It is therefore, submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak Yashwant Patil and another passed in SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevant whereof reads as under:

“74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balan