Vikram Sin am Singh v. Vers State of Pun of Punjab CRM
Case Details
CRM-M- -56996-2025 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 218 Vikram Sin am Singh Versus Vers State of Pun of Punjab CRM-M-56996-2025 .2025 Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advoc Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Senior DA nior DAG, Punjab. Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate wit Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate Ms. Sukhkamal Walia, Advoca ate with vocate with dvocate for respondent No.2. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner, an accused in cas in case FIR No. 101 dated 8.9.202 .2024, under Sect r Sections 420, 406 of Indian Penal Penal Code, registered against him him at Police Stat e Station Moonak, District Sangrur grur, has filed the present petition fo ition for grant of ant t of anticipatory bail. 2. In brief, the allegation agains against petitioner is that complainan lainant, who wanted wanted to set up a pesticide factory, w ory, was introduced to petitioner by on r by one Ram Niwa Niwas. Petitioner promised to arra to arrange loan and asked for certa certain documents. ments. After the documents were su ere supplied in November, 2021, it 21, it is alleged tha ed that petitioner informed that loan o loan of Rs.26 crores has been approve pproved and deman demanded his commission of about R bout Rs.60 lakhs. Complainant allege t alleges GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -56996-2025 2- -2 that Rs.35 Rs.35 lakhs was given to petitioner titioner and his father on 18.11.202 1.2021. However, t ever, the loan was not processed. Initi . Initially, he (P) made certain excuse excuses. However, ever, later, on account of interventio rvention made by the respectable an ble and friends, pet ds, petitioner admitted to his fault an ault and agreed to pay Rs.24 lakhs lakhs in three instal installments of Rs.8 lakhs each. The
Facts
. The first installment was to be paid paid in cash along along with which two cheques of Rs of Rs.8 lakhs each were to be hande handed over. It is . It is further the allegation of compl complainant that the cheques issued b sued by petitioner w ioner were presented to the bank thr k thrice and on each of such occasio ccasion, these were were dishonoured due to “insufficien fficient funds”. Though, Rs.1,15,000 15,000/- was deposi deposited in the account of compla omplainant. However, the remainin maining amount ha nt has not been paid. Thus, in nutshe nutshell, the allegation is that petition etitioner and his fath is father, who initially promised to fa d to facilitate the grant of loan and too nd took Rs.35 lakh 5 lakhs from him, did not do the ne the needful and even after settling th ling the dispute for te for Rs.24 lakhs, they did not pay t pay the agreed/settled amount as als as also that the ch the cheques issued by them were dis ere dishonoured. On the basis of sa of said complaint, laint, a formal case vide FIR No. 10 o. 101 dated 8.9.2024, under Section Sections 420, 406 of 406 of Indian Penal Code, was registe registered against him at Police Statio Station Moonak, D nak, District Sangrur. During the course of investiga vestigation, complainant handed over d over a copy of the of the compromise deed dated 6.2.20 6.2.2024 entered into between him an him and petitioner, a ioner, along with copies of cheque No. ue No. 894547 amounting to Rs.8 lakh .8 lakhs and chequ cheque No.894548 amounting to Rs.4 to Rs.4 lakhs. These documents we ts were taken into p into possession. Apprehending his arrest, peti t, petitioner moved an application fo tion for pre-arrest b rrest bail and the same was dismisse missed by learned Additional Session essions Judge, Sang e, Sangrur, vide order dated 21.8.2025 .2025. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -56996-2025 3- -3 3. Learned counsel for the petit e petitioner contends that petitioner, ioner, a property de erty dealer, has been falsely implicat plicated in the present case. In fac In fact, complainan lainant and his other associates includ including Suraj Kumar and Ram Niwa Niwas often used used to visit his office. A property operty related transaction had occurre ccurred between co een complainant and petitioner but d but different colour has been given given to the inciden ncident only with a view to harass pe rass petitioner as also to extract illeg t illegal monetary b tary benefit from him. Allegation l tion levelled against petitioner that h that he had assured assured complainant to secure a loan loan of Rs.6 crores for the purpose o rpose of setting up g up pesticide factory is totally fri lly frivolous, for neither petitioner ioner is banker nor er nor he has any relation with the ba the bank employee. Thus, the questio question of him faci m facilitating loan for complainant d nant does not arise, who otherwise ise has also failed failed to establish/place on record record, any document indicating h ting his financial ca cial capacity and expertise to set up a et up a pesticide factory. The fact th fact that complainan lainant alleged that Rs.35 lakhs was s was paid by him in cash as also th lso that complaint laint has been lodged after unexpl unexplained delay of 3 years clear clearly suggests fa ests false implication of petitioner an ner and twisting of facts. Towards th ards the end, learne
Legal Reasoning
being on the prima facie issue ssues including consideration of som f some reasonable grounds that woul would go to show if the accused ha d has committed the offence or thos those facts that would reflect on th on the seriousness of the offence. The . The self-imposed restraint on delvin elving GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -56996-2025 6- -6 deep into the analysis of the e the evidence at that stage is for val valid reasons, namely, to prevent an nt any prejudice to the case set up b up by the prosecution or the defence ence likely to be taken by the accuse cused and to keep all aspects of t of the matter open till the trial rial is concluded. 12. In Prasanta Kumar Sa r Sarkar's case (supra) (Prasan asanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Ch h Chatterjee and another), a Divisio ivision Bench of this Court had highli ighlighted the factors that ought to b t to be borne in mind while con considering the anticipatory ba bail application and had stated tha that :- "9. We are of the opinion tha n that the impugned order is clear learly unsustainable. It is trite that that this Court does not, normall mally, interfere with an order passe assed by the High Court granting o ing or rejecting bail to the accused. sed. However, it is equally incumbe mbent upon the High Court to exe exercise its discretion judiciousl iously, cautiously and strictly in com compliance with the basic principl ciples laid down in a plethora of dec f decisions of this Court on the poin point. It is well settled that, among o ng other circumstances, the factors tors to be borne in mind while conside nsidering an application for bail are l are: (i) whether there is any prim prima facie or reasonable ground und to believe that the accused had co ad committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the a he accusation; (iii)severity of the punishment ent in the event of conviction; (iv)danger of the accused abs absconding or fleeing, if released o sed on bail; (v) character, behaviour, mea means, position and standing of th of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence be ce being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension sion of the witnesses being influence enced; and GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -56996-2025 7- -7 (viii) danger, of course, of just of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 9. In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ etty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v av vs. The State tate of Maharashtra and another, her, 2025 AIR SC 3375, the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme C eme Court held that “Anticipatory ba ry bail is an exceptional remedy an y and ought not t not to be granted in a routine manne nner.” 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in rt in plethora of judicial preceden cedents including ding Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Pun Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, has tim has time and again r gain reiterated that while considering dering the anticipatory bail the Court Court is to take int ke into consideration the facts like s like gravity of offence, chances o nces of accused tam sed tampering with the evidence and e and probabilities of his fleeing fro ng from justice etc. e etc. Court should be circumspect a pect about the impact of its decision o ision on the society ociety as well. The anticipatory ba ory bail is an extraordinary discretio scretion which shou h should be exercised in the extraordin aordinary circumstances. 11. The factual backdrop of the f the case and the role played by th by the petitioner i ioner in the entire incident has been h een highlighted in para 2 of this orde is order. In view of iew of submissions advanced by lea by learned State counsel and learne learned counsel fo sel for complainant-respondent No nt No.2, presence of petitioner fo ner for custodial in dial interrogation is necessary to get to get the recovery of money effecte ffected, thus, he (P) he (P) has not been able to make out e out a case of exceptional depravity o avity or hardship in ship in his favour entitling him this ex his extra ordinary relief of grant of pr t of pre- t bail. arrest bail. 12. The petition being devoid of a id of any merit is hereby dismissed. .2025 14.11.2025 gbs NEY) (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
learned counsel contends that even tho en though no recovery is to be effecte effected from petitio petitioner, but he is ready and willing illing to join investigation as and whe nd when called for. d for. Prayer for allowing the present p esent petition has been made. 4. Status report by way of aff h, PPS, of affidavit of Gurinder Singh, PPS Deputy Sup ty Superintendent of Police, Sub Div b Division, Moonak has been filed. I iled. In para 4 there 4 thereof, role of petitioner has been h been highlighted. Factum of petition etitioner having ente g entered into a compromise with c with complainant on 6.2.2024 has als has also been menti mentioned as also that in pursuance o ance of the said compromise, petition etitioner agreed to to pay Rs.24 lakhs and issued c sued cheques which also came to b e to be dishonoure noured. Further, petitioner has no as not been able to explain in wh in what GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -56996-2025 4- -4 context, Rs Rs.1,15,000/- was deposited in the in the account of complainant. In cru In crux, the submi submission of learned State coun counsel and learned counsel fo sel for complainan lainant-respondent No.2 is that it is no it is not a civil dispute. Petitioner kne er knew from the v the very beginning that he would ould not be able to secure loan fo loan for complainan lainant but gave assurances to the o the contrary, took money, howeve owever, when later later he could not secure loan and n and neither was he able to return th turn the money, wit y, with the intervention of Panchaya nchayat, a compromise was arrived a ived at, wherein, he ein, he agreed to pay Rs.24 lakhs in t hs in three installments. Cheques we es were also issued issued which came to be dishonoured. oured. Though, as noted above, learne learned counsel for sel for petitioner submits that there there were some property transactio nsaction between pe een petitioner and complainant, but h , but he has not been able to elabora laborate upon the d the details of the said transaction. tion. Moreover, it is not the case o case of petitioner t ioner that he was compelled to ente o enter into compromise. Prayer fo ayer for dismissal o issal of the petition was made. 5. Heard learned counsel for th for the parties and have perused th sed the documents ments on record. 6. Before expressing any opinio opinion on submissions raised by bo by both the counse counsels, it would be appropriate to iate to refer to certain judgments o ents of Hon’ble Su ble Supreme Court, wherein the fa the factors to be kept in mind whi d while dealing wi ng with an application for grant o rant of anticipatory bail, have bee e been ssed. discussed. 7. Hon’ble the Supreme Cou Court in “P. Chidambaram v m vs. Directorate orate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SC 3 SCC 791), has observed as under: nder:- “67. Ordinarily, arrest f is a part of procedure of is the th investigation to secure not onl t only the presence of the accused b ed but several other purposes. Power ower under Section 438 Cr.P.C 197 1973 GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.20 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -56996-2025 5- -5 is an extraordinary power an r and the same has to be exercise rcised sparingly. The privilege of the f the pre-arrest bail should be grante ranted only in exceptional cases. T s. The judicial discretion conferre ferred upon the court has to be prope roperly exercised after application tion of mind as to the nature and gra gravity of the accusation; possibili ibility of applicant fleeing justice an e and other factors to decide wheth hether it is a fit case for grant ant of anticipatory bail. Grant nt of anticipatory bail to some ex extent interferes in the sphere ere of investigation of an offence nce and hence, the court must b st be circumspect while exercisin cising such power for grant nt of anticipatory bail. Anticipator atory bail is not to be granted as as a matter of rule and it has to b to be granted only when the court ourt is convinced that exceptional cir l circumstances exist to resort to th to that extraordinary remedy.” 8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court w ourt while deciding the case titled a titled as “Ms. X Vs. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and and another” (2023 SCC Online S ne SC 279) held a held as under:- “11.1. We propose to take a e a quick look at the consideration ations that ought to govern grant of a t of anticipatory bail. There are a lin a line of decisions of this court tha that have underscored the fact th ct that while deciding an application tion for bail, the court ought to refra efrain from undertaking a detailed a ed analysis of the evidence, the focu focus