The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M-22781-2025 232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22781-2025 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 Pawan Kumar ...Pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate, for the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Facts
FIR No. Dated Police Sta-on Sec-ons 10 24.01.2025 City Muktsar 420, 406, 34 IPC 1. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap(cid:14)oned above has come up before this Court under Sec(cid:14)on 482 of Bhara(cid:14)ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an(cid:14)cipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 15 of the bail pe(cid:14)(cid:14)on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allega(cid:14)ons are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: “2. Brief Facts leading to the registra(cid:21)on of FIR against pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner: A) That the instant FIR has been registered at the instance of complainant-
Legal Reasoning
replica of post-convic(cid:14)on sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu(cid:14)on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of an(cid:14)cipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jus(cid:14)fy custodial interroga(cid:14)on or pre-trial incarcera(cid:14)on. 10. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega(cid:14)ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus(cid:14)fiability for custodial interroga(cid:14)on or the pre-trial incarcera(cid:14)on at this stage. Without commen(cid:14)ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men(cid:14)oned above, the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner makes a case for bail. 11. Given above, provided the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner is not required in any other case, the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner shall be released on an(cid:14)cipatory bail in the FIR cap(cid:14)oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa(cid:14)sfac(cid:14)on of the Arres(cid:14)ng Officer, and if the ma?er is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep(cid:14)ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa(cid:14)sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 12. While furnishing a personal bond, the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner shall men(cid:14)on the following personal iden(cid:14)fica(cid:14)on details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the a?es(cid:14)ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) E-Mail id (If available) 4. 13. This order is subject to the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner’s complying with the following terms. 14. The pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner is directed to join the inves(cid:21)ga(cid:21)on within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Inves(cid:21)gator. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec(cid:14)on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec(cid:14)on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner shall join the inves(cid:14)ga(cid:14)on as and when called by the Inves(cid:14)ga(cid:14)ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves(cid:14)ga(cid:14)on at all further stages as required. In the event JYOTI 2025.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 5 CRM-M-22781-2025 of failure to do so, the prosecu(cid:14)on will be open to seeking cancella(cid:14)on of the bail. During the inves(cid:14)ga(cid:14)on, the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 15. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi(cid:14)ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 16. In case the Inves(cid:14)gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta(cid:14)on arraigns another sec(cid:14)on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec(cid:14)on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec(cid:14)ons men(cid:14)oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec(cid:14)on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec(cid:14)ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec(cid:14)ons men(cid:14)oned above; then, in that case, the Inves(cid:14)gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner no(cid:14)ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 17. This bail is condi(cid:13)onal, and the founda(cid:13)onal condi(cid:13)on is that if the pe(cid:13)(cid:13)oner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica(cid:13)on for cancella(cid:13)on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 18. Any observa(cid:14)on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 19. A cer(cid:14)fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a?est it to be a true copy. If the a?es(cid:14)ng officer wants to verify its authen(cid:14)city, such an officer can also verify its authen(cid:14)city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a?es(cid:14)ng bonds. 20. Pe--on allowed in terms men(cid:14)oned above. All pending applica(cid:14)ons, if any,
Arguments
Harminder Singh s/o Bagicha Singhh r/o Jalalabad Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib. The complainant approached the higher authori(cid:21)es with complaint no.359-PC-2A/24 dated 10-12-2024 containing allega(cid:21)ons that complainant is a medical prac(cid:21)(cid:21)oner and present pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner- Pawan Kumar Sharmawas earlier known to him and he got the complainant introduced with co-accused Jagmohan Singh. The appearance of co- accused Jagmohan Singh Brar s/o Udham Singh r/o Chandigarh was influencing. He seemed to be reputed person. Son of complainant namely Gurpreet Singh was preparing for PCS examina(cid:21)on. Pawan Kumar- Pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner used to say about said Jagmohan Singh Brar holding a great poli(cid:21)cal clout and can get his son selected as a Deputy Supdt. of Police. 1 JYOTI 2025.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-22781-2025 Jagmohan Singh himself told the complainant that he had connec(cid:21)ons with Ministers and Rs. One crore is required to spend for the selec(cid:21)on of his son as Deputy Supdt of Police. Complainant put faith upon Jagmohan Singh and Pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner- Pawan Kumar and became ready to pay such a huge amount for the be:er future of his son. Therefore complainant took loan of Rs. 45-00 lakh from Axis Bank, Sri Muktsar Sahib. On 02-08-2020 co- accused Jagmohan Singh along with his wife and son came to the complainant at his house, where they again repeated that they could secure selec(cid:21)on of complainant's son as D.S.P. The complainant had paid Rs. 45-00 lakh in cash to the co-accused Jagmohan Singh in the presence of Ravinder Singh s/o Gurtej singh r/o Sri Muktsar Sahib. Jagmohan singh again assured complainant about the selec(cid:21)on of his son and asked to arrange remaining amount of Rs. 55-00 lakh. On 11-10-2020 the co- accused Jagmohan Singh along with his son Haraziz Singh and wife Paramjit Kaur visited the complainant and received Rs. 20-00 lakh in the presence of Sukhdev Singh s/o Major Singh r/o Village Nurpur Kirpal ke and further on 29-11-2020, the said Jagmohan Singh along with his wife and son visited the complainant and received the cash amount of Rs.35- 00 lakh from complainant in the presence of Bhupinder Singh s/o Hardial Singh r/o Charewan for the purpose of selec(cid:21)on of his son as Deputy Supdt of Police as promised earlier. B) That the complainant further made allega(cid:21)ons that the no(cid:21)fica(cid:21)on for the PCS examina(cid:21)on was issued on 12-12-2020 and Preliminary examina(cid:21)on was held on 13-02-2021. The result of pre-exam was out on 18-06-2021 but the name of the son of the complainant did not figure in the list of selected candidates. The complainant approached the co- accused Jagmohan Singh and asked about the result not came as per his expecta(cid:21)ons, then said Jagmohan Singh tried to make the complainant believe that he would get his son selected as Deputy Supdt of Police direct with the approval of Punjab Cabinet. However despite visi(cid:21)ng the Jagmohan Singh on 01-10-2022 and 16-11-2022, he could not get his son select as D.S.P in Punjab Police and even admi:ed that he had received the amount of Rs. One Crore from complainant and has failed to get his promise, so he would return the amount aDer selling his land. No such amount was returned by co-accused Jagmohan Singh and proclaimed that he in connivance with present pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner-Pawan Kumar were intended to dupe complainant and have succeeded in their nefarious design. The accused had threaten the complainant to get him eliminated from 2 JYOTI 2025.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-22781-2025 Gangsters in their connec(cid:21)ons. Therefore, the complainant had filed a previous complaint against pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner and others on 21-03-2024 through D.I.G, Faridkot but co-accused Jagmohan singh in order to delay the complainant had entered into a compromise dated 18-05-2024 and in the presence of panchayat, he agreed to return the amount of complainant within 90 days. Therefore the complaint was withdrawn by complainant Harminder Singh. Subsequently the Jagmohan Singh (co-accused) had issued three post dated cheques dated 01-11-2024 and 01-02-2025 worth of Rs. 20-00 lakh each and third cheque dated 01-08-2025 amoun(cid:21)ng to Rs. 60-00 lakh were issued in favour of complainant and assured that the cheques would be honoured on their presenta(cid:21)on. But the dishonest inten(cid:21)ons of the accused again surfaced with the presenta(cid:21)on of his cheque dated 01-11-2024 and same returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. Therefore the complainant again approached the office of Inspector General of Police, Faridkot with the present complaint.” 4. Counsel for the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner submits that he would have no objec(cid:14)on in case any stringent condi(cid:14)ons this Court might put upon the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner and in case, pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner repeats the offence, where the sentence prescribes 07 years or more, the State shall file an applica(cid:14)on for cancella(cid:14)on of bail. He further contends that pre-trial incarcera(cid:14)on would cause an irreversible injus(cid:14)ce to the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner and his family. 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following por(cid:14)ons of the status report, which read as follows: “3. Evidence Against Pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner A) That the instant complaint has been enquired by Supdt of Police (D) Sri Muktsar Sahib in a thorough and detailed manner. In order to establish his allega(cid:21)ons, the complainant had produced following witnesses: i) Harminder Singh (himself) ii) Gurpreet Singh s/o Harminder Singh iii) Sukhdev singh s/o Major Singh r/o Nurpur Kirpala iv) Ravinder Singh s/o Gurtej Singh r/o Muktsar v) Bhupinder Singh s/o Hardial Singh r/o Chadewan vi) Kuldeep Singh s/o Amar Singh r/o Gujjaran B) The statements of all the concerned witness were reduced into wri(cid:21)ng and relevant record also brought on record. The record of PCS examina(cid:21)on appeared by complainant's son also produced by complainant. The copy of se:lement/compromise dated 18-05-2024 reveals that in the presence of aforesaid witness, the co-accused Jagmohan Singh had admi:ed the amount of Rs. 1-00 crore received from complainant for the purpose of securing his son a Job in Public Sector as a JYOTI 2025.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3 CRM-M-22781-2025 Gaze:ed officer but when the pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner had failed to return this amount to complainant, then co-accused Jagmohan Singh had issued three post dated cheques in favour of complainant with filling amount which in aggregate was equal to Rs. one crore. On presenta(cid:21)on of the first cheque dated 01-11-2024 the same was dishonored. Which has sufficiently proved the dishonest inten(cid:21)ons of the accused including pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner. The complainant was duped by the accused with a huge amount of Rs. 1-00 crore and there is enough documentary evidence on record. None of the accused had come present before the inquiry officer to put his version about any other reason of received this amount of Rs. One crore from complainant. The complainant and his witnesses had proved that the amount was received by Jagmohan Singh-co-accused from complainant with false promise to get his son selected as a D.S.P in Punjab Police. The payments were made by complainant in cash in the presence of witness namely i) Ravinder Singh s/o Gurtej Singh ii) Sukhdev Singh s/o Major Singh iii) Bhupinder Singh s/o Hardial Singh. The complainant was induced by pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner to pay this amount to Jagmohan singh and persuaded the complainant that Jagmohan Singh has capacity to get his son appointed as D.S.P. The inten(cid:21)ons of the accused were dishonest since of the incep(cid:21)on of the dealing with the complainant. The ac(cid:21)ve connivance of present pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner-Pawan Kumar aforesaid in playing fraud with complainant, also established and the ingredients of offence u/s 420, 406, 34 IPC prima facie a:racted to the facts of the case. C) Thus the incumbent inquiry officer in his fact finding report dated 21- 01-2025 recommended to launch inves(cid:21)ga(cid:21)on against i) Jagmohan Singh Brar and ii) Pawan Kumar Sharma-pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner aforesaid. The Senior Supdt of Police, Sri Muktsar Sahib approved the report, consequently the instant FIR No. 10 (supra) has been registered against i) Jagmohan Singh and ii) Pawan Kumar Sharma (Pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner). 4. That with the commencement of inves(cid:21)ga(cid:21)on, pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner was served with statutory no(cid:21)ce u/s 35(3) BNSS, requiring him to join inves(cid:21)ga(cid:21)on, but the pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner did not comply with any of the statutory requisi(cid:21)on. However in compliance of order dated 30-04-2025 the pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner has been joined in inves(cid:21)ga(cid:21)on vide DDR No.42 dated 07-05-2025 but no defrauded amount has recovered from the custody of pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner. 5. Role of the Pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner: That the present pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner got the complainant introduced complainant with Jagmohan Singh. The complainant was induced by pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner to pay this amount to Jagmohan Singh and persuaded the Complainant that Jagmohan Singh has capacity to get his son appointed as D.S.P. The inten(cid:21)ons of the accused were dishonest since of the incep(cid:21)on of the dealing with the complainant. The ac(cid:21)ve connivance of present pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner- Pawan Kumar aforesaid in playing fraud with complainant, also established. Jagmohan Singh is a prime accused in this case whereas the pe(cid:21)(cid:21)oner has played as an instrumental in the commission of fraud with the complainant.” REASONING: 7. The main accused had compromised the ma?er with the complainant and a cheque was issued to complainant, which was later on dishonoured and in rela(cid:14)on to that cheque which was given to return the money, a complaint was filed. The role of the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner is en(cid:14)rely on lower foo(cid:14)ng. JYOTI 2025.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4 CRM-M-22781-2025 8. The inves(cid:14)ga(cid:14)on indicates that the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner is not the main accused, so the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for gran(cid:14)ng bail to the other co- accused with a higher role. 9. The pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner is not the main accused and nothing was paid to him and he was only introducer, as such, he is en(cid:14)tled to bail. Pre-trial incarcera(cid:14)on should not be a
Decision
stand disposed of. 02.07.2025 Jyo(cid:14)-II (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE JYOTI 2025.07.09 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. 6