Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 406, 420
- Emigration Act, 1983 s. 24
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of above order, petitioner has joined investigation and so far as recovery of money is concerned, these are not the recovery proceedings; hence, objection to that effect is hereby rejected. Moreover, there is an agreement allegedly…
Judgment
Present: Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, learned AAG, Punjab. Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate, and Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J. Petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhia, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) has been filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0116 dated 14.06.2024, under Sections 420 & 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983, registered at Police Station City-2, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
Allegations are that petitioner duped the de complainant-Shamsher Singh to the tune of Rs.14.00 lakh on the pretext of sending his son abroad. ATUL SETHI 2025.01.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -1- CRM-M-45647-2024
Contends that the Coordinate Bench, granted interim bail to petitioner on 30.09.2024 and in terms thereof, he has already joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.
Per contra, learned State counsel, on instructions from the police officer present in Court duly acknowledge the above factual position, but opposed the prayer on the premise that an amount of Rs.14.00 lakh is yet to be recovered from petitioner.
On similar lines, learned counsel for the complainant, while making reference to an agreement dated 05.09.2022, executed by the petitioner as well as other co-accused with complainant, submits that petitioner does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.
It is an admitted position that petitioner was granted interim bail by the Coordinate Bench on 30.09.2024 and the same is recapitulated as under:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that complainant be impleaded as respondent No.2 for the proper adjudication of the present case. The prayer is allowed. The complainant-Shamsher Singh son of Hari Singh, resident of village Ikolaha, Police Sation Sadar Khanna, District Ludhiana impleaded as respondent No.2. Let notice be issued to the newly added respondent No.2 for
24.11.2024. ATUL SETHI 2025.01.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CRM-M-45647-2024 Registry is directed to make necessary amendment in the memo of parties. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before Investigating/Arresting Officer investigation within one week or as and when required. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release the petitioner on interim bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction. He shall abide by the following conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :- 1) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required to do so. 2) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.”
It is not in dispute that in pursuance of above order, petitioner has joined investigation and so far as recovery of money is concerned, these are not the recovery proceedings; hence, objection to that effect is hereby rejected. Moreover, there is an agreement allegedly executed between the parties; therefore, petitioner can take recourse to the remedy before appropriate Court, in accordance with law, if so advised.
In view of above, interim order dated 30.09.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ATUL SETHI 2025.01.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- CRM-M-45647-2024
It is also made clear that petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation.
Above observations be not construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case; rather confined only to decide the present bail matter.
Disposed off accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
13.01.2025 atulsethi (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : Yes Yes No No ATUL SETHI 2025.01.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 406, 420; Emigration Act, 1983 — s. 24; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 13 Jan 2025. The bench was MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.