IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.05.2026 Date of Uploading: 19.05.2026 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. Varinder S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present second 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.

The first petition bearing CRM-M-56474-2025 (Annexure P-4)

for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail filed before this Court was dismissed on merits thereof on 06.10.2025. The present petition is the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail which has been preferred by the petitioner on 04.05.2026.

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 lakhs 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. Upon these set of allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and he has no connection with the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. On this premise, learned counsel has argued that the instant second petition is maintainable and deserves fresh consideration. It has been further contended that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing is to be recovered from him. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join investigation and shall abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance notice) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on merits. Learned State counsel has submitted that the first petition was dismissed on merits thereof on 06.10.2025. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. Learned State counsel, while opposing the plea in hand on merits, has iterated that the allegations levelled in the FIR are serious in nature and disclose a pri