IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-60540-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 05.05.2026 Pargat Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Through the instant petition, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 0081 dated 18.08.2019, registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by complainant Major Singh alleging therein that he was looking for a job for his unemployed son. Through his relative Jagjit Singh, he came to know that accused Surjit Singh used to arrange jobs for youths. He met Surjit Singh, who assured that he could get the son of the complainant recruited as Inspector in Food and Supply Department and in lieu thereof, he demanded a sum of Rs.11,20,000/-. Accused Surjit Singh along with his friend Sandeep took the complainant to Chandigarh, wherein he was introduced with one person, namely Simranjit Singh, who was told to be the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Principal Secretary. All of them, assured to get the son of the complainant employed. The complainant had given a sum of Rs.1 lakh in cash to accused Surjit Singh and another amount of Rs.1 lakh was transferred in the bank account of one Ramandeep Singh on asking of accused Surjit Singh. Accused Surjit Singh and Sandeep had taken the complainant to Chandigarh, wherein they met the present petitioner along with Simranjit Singh, OSD. The petitioner and said Simranjit Singh took the educational certificates and other documents of the son of the complainant and assured to get him recruited soon. However, the son of the complainant was neither provided any job nor the money given by the complainant was returned to him. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Accused Simranjit Singh and Sandeep were arrested and subsequently released on bail. Accused Surjit Singh could not be arrested and was declared a proclaimed offender. Thereafter, challan qua accused Simranjit Singh and Sandeep was presented.

3. As revealed from the record, the name of the petitioner was kept in column No. 2 of the challan report filed qua the abovenamed co-accused. During trial, an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 04.11.2022 on the ground that the same was premature as the petitioner had never been declared innocent. It is further revealed that during trial of the abovenamed co-accused, when one witness namely PW-2 Inspector Lovepreet Singh was being examined, his examination was deferred by the learned trial Court on the request of public prosecutor to the effect that supplementary challan qua the present petitioner was to be filed. Thereafter, the learned trial Court kept on adjourning the case for filing supplementary challan. After filing of the same on 29.08.2025, apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned trial Court but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 20.09.2025.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, during the course of investigation, he had been found to be innocent and that is why, he was not arrested and challaned. The application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. had also been dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 04.11.2022. There was no occasion for the learned trial Court to ask for filing supplementary challan qua him once he had not been summoned as an additional accused. The learned trial Court did n