IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 07.04.2026 Prabhjot Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent 106a CRM-M-72487-2025 Sohan Lal ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-66591-2025.

Mr. Jasinder S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-72487-2025.

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr.Asim Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. By this order, the two above-mentioned petitions are disposed of, both having arisen out of the same FIR.

2. Prayer in the present petitions is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a case FIR No.267 dated 05.11.2025, registered under Sections 306, 316(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala.

3. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was registered of the basis of complaint moved by Hindustan Unilever Limited through its authorized representative Khem Raj. It was alleged that Prabhjot Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-66591-2025), who worked as Security Guard in the company and Sohan Lal (petitioner in CRM-M- 72487-2025), who worked as Assistant Technician alongwith other co- accused robbed the complainant company of expensive supply of chemical which costed approximately Rs.37 lacs plus GST. It was alleged that the petitioners in connivance with other co-accused, used the same number plate on two different trucks to create a false impression. One truck, which was still loaded, was shown as unloaded, so that the cameras at the weighment bridge record both trucks as empty and leave the premises, thereby hiding the fact that one truck was still carrying goods. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala praying for grant of anticipatory bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail applications filed by the petitioners vide orders dated 18.11.2025 and 11.12.2025, respectively. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for grant of anticipatory bail by way of filing the present petitions. It is apposite to mention here that vide orders dated 27.11.2025/22.12.2025 passed by this Court, no coercive action was ordered to be taken against the petitioners.

4. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case on the basis of assumptions and presumptions.

Learned counsel for petitioner Prabhjot Singh has submitted that the petitioner is only the Security Guard in the complainant company.

He has submitted that the allegations regarding changing of number plates of two trucks was never in the domain of the petitioner. He submits that even otherwise, the complainant company is fitted with the CCTV cameras and the same could be verified from the footage of the same. He further contends that from the bare reading of the FIR, no role whatsoever has been attributed to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for petitioner Sohan Lal has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Technician Trainee in the complainant company. He contends that the petitioner is only responsible for supervising the unloading of the material and maintaining records of the quantity received, and is not responsible for recording or verifying the entry and exit weights of the trucks. He further contends that misappropriation, if any, has occurred is at the stage of exiting of trucks, which would be probably in the domain of the persons who are present at the weighment bridge and the drivers of the truck.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have, thus, submitted that in the facts and circum