##PAGE1##

CRM-M-3374-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-3374-2026 (O&M)

SATNAM SINGH DHAWAN

... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

1 The date when the judgment is reserved 07.05.2026

2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 08.05.2026

3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 08.05.2026

website

4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full

pronounced or whether the full judgment is

pronounced

5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable

judgment and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Utsav Singh Bains, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab

Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the complainant

****

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant

of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.11 dated 30.11.2024 registered

under Sections 384, 420, 465, 467, 468, 120B of IPC at Police Station Economic

Offences Wing, Punjab Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana.

AMIT SHARMA

2026.05.08 18:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-3374-2026 (O&M) 2

2. As per the allegations, a complaint received at Vigilance Bureau,

Economic Wing Ludhiana had been enquired into, and it was revealed that the

petitioner in connivance with the co-accused Bhupinder Punj and some other

persons, used to blackmail the officials posted in the office of Regional

Transport Authority (RTA) Ludhiana by extending threats to lodge complaints

against them with the Vigilance Department and also used to coerce such

officials to carry out the tasks as desired by them, by extorting money from the

public persons and also from the officials/officers of RTA. On enquiry, officials

of RTA also produced several screenshots and WhatsApp messages verifying

that threats were being extended to them by the petitioner and co-accused. One

data entry operator of the office of RTA even disclosed that he was compelled

by the petitioner to transfer an amount of Rs 80,000/- into two different accounts

and that the accused Bhupinder Punj had come to him and demanded a sum of

Rs 30,000/- on asking of the petitioner and that Bhupinder Punj was an active

conduit in the extortion racket, who used to collect money for the present

petitioner.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated.

During investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 24.09.2025. Co-accused

Rajiv Sood was subsequently arrested. Investigation now stands concluded.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been

falsely implicated in this case. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate.

He is in custody since long. He is not required for further investigation. The

trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be

served by detaining him in custody. The only evidence against him is

AMIT SHARMA

2026.05.08 18:08

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-3374-2026 (O&M) 3

screenshots of some WhatsApp chat. The authenticity of the same is to be tested

during trial. With these broad submissions, he deserves to be extended benefit

of bail and the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the

complainant and while relying upon the status report has argued that the

allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He is accused of coercing

and blackmailing officials/employees of RTO offices in Punjab and extracting

money from them, thereby exploiting public trust for personal enrichment. His

antecedents are not clean. There are chances of his committing similar offences,

if extended benefit of bail. It is thus, urged that the petition does not deserve to

be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties at considerable length.

7. The allegations against the pet