State of Punjab v. Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab

Judgment

#1. Present 4th petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.113 dated 29.08.2024 under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

#2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “Copy of complaint "To the SHO PS Anandpur Sahib. Sir, it is submitted that I am Sukhbir Singh son of Sulakhan Singh resident of Quarter No.2, Gurudwara Sisganj, Anandpur Sahib. I am posted as Sewadar in SGPC, Sri Amritsar and I am deputed in flour mill of Takht Sri Kesgarh Sahib, Sri Anandpur Sahib. My wife Surinder Kaur is running a tailor shop in Mohalla Attariwala, Sri Anandpur Sahib. There is house of Ex Panj Piara Sh. Joginder Singh of Takht Sri Kesgarh Sahib in Mohalla Attariwala, Sri Anandpur Sahib, where two persons namely Harsimranjit Singh and Mahabir Singh sons of Baljit Singh and Amritpal Kaur (mobile 6239896806, 8264547948) wife of Harsimranjit Singh residents of Rasulpur Kalan, Tehsil and District Sri Amritsar were living with their two sons and one daughter for the last one year. Lady Amritpal Kaur used to come to the shop of my wife for stitching of clothes, who told my wife that we are living in Calgary): Canada and that we have two restaurants there and we have 60/70 trucks and other business. She Started convincing my wife to send my daughter Abhineet Kaur to Canada on study visa who was aged 19 years and had passed CRM-M-16306-2026 -2- 10+2, but my wife did not agree to send the daughter alone. Thereafter, above said Amritpal Kaur misled us to send my entire family including me, my wife and: 3 children on PR to Canada and said that she will accompany them and called us in her above said house, where all three of them i.e. Harsimranjit Singh, Mahabir Singh and Amritpal Kaur convinced us to send out entire family to Canada under a conspiracy. They first demanded Rs.18 Lac, upon which I gave Rs.5 Lac in cash on 20.12.2023 to them in their rented. house in Mohalla Attariwala in the presence of my wife Surinder Kaur and Manbir Singh son of Hari Singh. Later on 20.01:2024, I gave Rs.5 Lac in cash in their house in Mohalla Attariwala in the presence of my wife Surinder Singh and Manbir Singh. All three of them received the money from me. in the presence of their children and assured us that your work will be done within a month. Then 31.01.2024, they received Rs.8 Lac from me for the purpose of school admission of my younger son in Canada. Then, they received Rs.5 Lac from me on 20:06.2024 for the purpose of making passport and other expenses. Then they said to us that your visa has been issued and demanded Rs.8 Lac more for air tickets and other expenses. On 05.07.2024, they called us home and showed us the visas on our passports and gained Our confidence. Upon this, I gave Rs.2 Lac to them on 05.07.2024 itself and later gave Rs.6 Lac to them on 12.07.2024 by going to their house. Thereafter, they asked us to go to our ancestral village for 3/4 days as our flight is scheduled for 26th July. Consequently, my wife and children came to our ancestral village Khushalpur, District Gurdaspur on: 15.07.2024 and later I also went there on 18.07.2024. Then on 20.07.2024, Harsimranjit Singh called me on phone and said that my mother has expired so I am going to see of my family at Delhi Airport and will return in the evening.. Later he did not receive the phone and then his phone was switched off. The same day, I came to know through phone from Sri Anandpur Sahib that all of them had fled away on 18.07.2024 itself. When both these brothers had come to Sri Anandpur Sahib, then they had shorn hair and were cleaned saved. Later, they started wearing clothes of Nihangs. These persons have cheated me of Rs.31 Lac on the pretext of sending me and my family abroad and after making our passports they have retained them. I have come to know that these persons have also cheated some goldsmiths in main bazar, Anandpur Sahib and have grabbed their jewellery. Required legal action be taken against these persons namely Harsimranjit Singh, Mahabir Singh sons of Baljit Singh and Amritpal Kaur above said and our jewellery be got returned and justice may be done to us. I shall be very thankful to you. Yours faithfully. Sd/ Sukhbir Singh son of Sulakhan Singh resident of Mohalla Sisganj, Sri Anandpur Sahib, mobile 87278-36382. Complaint No.544-Dasti-PS APS dated 23.07.2024. Above said complaint was marked to Incharge PP City APS for necessary action. Sd/ Danishvir Singh, Inspector/SHO, PS Sri Anandpur Sahib dated 23.07.2024. In his inquiry report No.82-Dasti, PS City Sri Anandpur Sahib dated 15.08.2024, it was concluded as follows: Inquiry Report: From the statements recorded during the inquiry and from the inquiry it has been found that complainant Sukhbir Singh is working a Sewadar in SGPC.while his wife is running a tailor shop in Mohalla Attariwala, Anandpur Sahib. In the house of Ex. Panj Piara Sh. Joginder Singh of Takht Sri Kesgarh Sahib situated in Mohalla Attariwala, Anandpur Sahib, opposite party namely Harsimranjit Singh, Mahabir Singh and Amritpal Kaur @ Kulwinder Kaur were living with their 3 children for about one year. Amritpal Kaur @ Kulwinder Kaur: used to get her clothes stitched: from complainant's wife, who told her that they are living in Calgary, Canada and they have two restaurants and many trucks besides other. business. She first started convincing her to send her daughter Abhineet Kaur on study visa to Canada but when complainant's wife did not agree to send the daughter alone, then above said Amritpal Kaur misled them to send the entire family of the complainant on PR to Caneda and said that she would accompany them. Then the complainant party was called in the house of the accused where Harsimranjit Singh, Mahabir Singh and Amritpal Kaur under a conspiracy convinced the complainant to send the family to Canada. First, they demanded Rs.18 Lac, upon which the complainant gave them Rs.5 Lac in cash on 20.12.2013 in their rented house in Mohalla Attariwala in the presence of his wife Surinder Kaur and Manbir Singh son of Hari Singh and later gave Rs.5 Lac in cash on 20.01.2024 in the presence of aforesaid witnesses. All three of them received the money and assured that your work will be done within a month. Then on 31.01.2024, Rs.8 Lac was taken by the accused for admission of complainant's younger son in CRM-M-16306-2026 -3- school in Canada. Then, they took Rs.3 Lạc for making passports: and other experises. Later, they said that your visas have been issued and took Rs.8 Lac more for air tickets and other expenses. Then they assured the complainant that you must visit your ancestral village as your flight is scheduled for 26th July. At this, complainant along with his family went to their ancestral village in District Gurdaspur. On 20.07.2024, Harsimran Singh called the complainant and said that his mother has expired and he is sending his family through flight from Delhi. Later, his phone was switched off and these three accused did not return till date. In this way, opposite party Harsimran Singh, Mahabir Singh and Amritpal Kaur @ Kulwinder Kaur have conspired to cheat the complainant of Rs.31 Lac on the pretext of settling his family in Canada and have also retained the passports of his family. Therefore, FIR under Section 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) BNS is recommended to be registered against Harsimran Singh, Mahabir Singh sons of Baljit Singh and Amritpal Kaur @ Kulwinder Kaur wife of Harsimranjit Singh residents of village Rasulpur, PS Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar, Report is hereby presented. Sd/- Gurmukh Singh, SI Incharge, PP City, Sri Anandpur Sahib.”

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 16.11.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of civil/money dispute. Learned counsel has further submitted that upon culmination of investigation qua the petitioner, challan already stands presented qua the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the trial emanating from the FIR is a magistrate triable, conclusion thereof will take long time. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

#4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit dated 22.04.2026 in Court today. The same be kept on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 21.07.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

#5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. Before delving into the matter in hand, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme CRM-M-16306-2026 -4- Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under: “10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

#11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.

#12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and CRM-M-16306-2026 -5- humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution.”

5.1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as under:- “Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.”

5.2. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

#22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.” CRM-M-16306-2026 -6-

#6. The petitioner was arrested on 16.11.2024 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 14.01.2025. Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited but only 2 have been partly examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsels give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1 As per custody certificate dated 21.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year 08 months and 1 day & is shown to be involved in other case/FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj CRM-M-16306-2026 -7- v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 4th attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 27.08.2025 by co-ordinate bench of this Court in CRM-M-46061-2025. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the extended incarceration and the procrastination of the trial, the folly thereof cannot be attributed to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: As an epilogue to the above discussion, the “10. following principles emerge: I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non- prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.” CRM-M-16306-2026 -8- Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

#7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell- phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

#8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

#10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

22.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No