Satbir Singh alias Bittu v. State of Punjab

Judgment

#1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short

‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated 42

29.03.2018 Ladhuwal, Police Station District Police Commissionerate Ludhaina Sections 420, 506 and 174 of IPC (465, 468 and 471 of IPC added later on)

#2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition CRM-M No.39471 of 2026 -2- are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Tara Singh alleging therein that a case bearing FIR No.104 was registered against his son Jagat Singh under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Bhogpur on 05.12.2013. A compromise was effected in that case on 17.09.2014 in lieu of payment of a sum of Rs.14 lakhs. His son had given a cheque of Rs.8 lakhs to the complainant and other concerned persons in the aforementioned FIR and an amount of Rs.6 lakhs was to be given. On

18.09.2014, the petitioner along with Manpreet Singh and Baljit Singh came to the complainant and his son and asked them to give a remaining amount of Rs.6 lakhs to Manpreet Singh and Baljit Singh. The petitioner gave identity proofs of both Manpreet Singh and Baljit Singh to the complainant which were in the form of photocopies of their driving licences. The petitioner then took an amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the complainant and left by representing that the terms of the compromise were complied with and nothing was outstanding. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the petitioner had extracted an amount of Rs.6 lakhs from him by impersonating some persons and on the basis of fake identity proofs. The petitioner on being asked to return the money of the complainant, threatened to kill him. As such, prayer was mde for taking action against him.

#3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were CRM-M No.39471 of 2026 -3- initiated. The petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was allowed vide order dated 20.04.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

#4. As per the allegations, offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC were added during the course of investigation. The petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was allowed and he was directed to appear before the learned trial Court within 15 days and to furnish bonds to its satisfaction vide order dated 30.03.2024.

#5. The petitioner absented himself subsequently. Proceedings for declaring him as a proclaimed person were initiated and he was declared as such on 04.01.2025. He again moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 02.07.2026.

#6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature. An inquiry was conducted by competent authority and the complaint lodged against him was found to be false on 29.09.2017. After extending benefit of anticipatory bail on 30.03.2024, he was not informed anything about his appearance before the trial Court. He was under the bona fide belief that he would be informed whenever his presence was required. He did not receive any summons or warrants and had been wrongly declared a proclaimed person. He is not required for further CRM-M No.39471 of 2026 -4- investigation as the same stands concluded. His antecedents are clean. He is still ready to join further investigation, if any. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. To fortify her arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments cited as Asha Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC Online SC 5633; Deepankar Vishwas v. State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. Omti, District Jabalpur, 2025:MPHC-JBP:4526 and Shamshad v. State NCT of Delhi, Bail Application No.3286 of 2025 decided on 27.11.2025.

#7. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by her that after passing of the order dated 30.03.2024 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner was required to join investigation but he did not do so at any point of time and was rightly declared a proclaimed offender in due course of law. He has been misusing the procedure of law. He still stands declared a proclaimed offender. The petition as such is not maintainable at all. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

#9. This Court has considered the rival submissions. The petitioner was previously extended benefit of anticipatory bail. Even after addition of certain offences, he was again extended benefit of anticipatory bail. However, he did not join the investigation. He was declared a proclaimed offender. Undoubtedly, declaration under CRM-M No.39471 of 2026 -5- Section 82 of Cr.P.C. does not put a complete embargo of entertaining application/petition for anticipatory bail, however, the Court is to take into consideration all the surrounding circumstances while considering prayer for grant of bail in case where an accused is declared a proclaimed offender. In the instant case, the petitioner had been extended benefit of anticipatory bail not only once but twice and second time on addition of offences under Sections 465, 467 and 471 of IPC. He did not join investigation in pursuance of order dated 30.03.2024 and sought to extend benefit of pre arrest bail to him only after being declared a proclaimed person. The explanation given by him to the effect that he did not receive any notice or warrant cannot be accepted since once he was directed to join investigation then it was incumbent upon him to do so. The well settled proposition of law is that a person released on bail is deemed to be in constructive custody of law and if the law requires him to come back to custody for some specified reason, an application for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest would not lie since there cannot be any apprehension of arrest by a person already in constructive custody of law. Reference in this regard can be had to Manish Jain vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board, 2022 (1) SCC (Cri) 676. Reference can also be made to Sumit vs. State of U. P. and another, 2026 (1) RCR (Criminal) 765 wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if after grant of bail to an accused, further cognizance and non bailable CRM-M No.39471 of 2026 -6- offences are added, the following options are available to him:- (i) the accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In the event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested; (ii) the investigating agency can seek order from the court under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively for arrest of the accused and his custody. (iii) The Court, in exercise of its power under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of its power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) respectively can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail. (iv) In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.

#10. It is explicit from the record that after addition of offences and after being declared a proclaimed offender, the petitioner instead of surrendering before the Court, moved application for grant of CRM-M No.39471 of 2026 -7- anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge though in the peculiar circumstances of the case the same could not be stated to be maintainable. For the same reasons, this petition also cannot be stated to be maintainable before this Court as well. Accordingly, finding no ground to allow the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

#11. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

20.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No