Allowed¶25

Ranbir Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2025CRM-M/10849/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-10849-2025; High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh; Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.; July 01, 2025; regular bail; Section 483 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Section 13(1)A/13(2); IPC Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B; FIR No.32 dated 14.10.2024; PS Vigilance Bureau Ludhiana; XEN Municipal Corporation Ludhiana; Contingency Fund temporary advance Rs.3,16,58,000; Rs.4,34,692 unaccounted; prosecution sanction awaited; charges not framed; 11 adjournments; parity with co-accused Pankaj Garg and Rajinder Singh; anticipatory bail; custody since 14.10.2024; bail allowed.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted; petitioner to be admitted to bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. ¶25

Ranbir Singh Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted; petitioner to be admitted to bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 14.10.2024 in FIR No.32 dated 14.10.2024 (PS Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana) under Section 13(1)A read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶16

Court's answer

Given the case is primarily based on documentary evidence, petitioner's custody since 14.10.2024, challan presented in February 2025 with charges yet to be framed, prosecution sanction not accorded till date despite 11 adjournments by the trial Court, the possibility of the trial concluding in the near future seems remote; accordingly the petitioner was held entitled to bail.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account that co-accused Pankaj Garg and Rajinder Singh have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner standing on similar footing is entitled to similar relief.

¶24

Key takeaways

Anything observed in the judgment shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶26
In case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail granted under Section 483, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (third bail petition) to Ranbir Singh, former XEN, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, arraigned in FIR No.32 dated 14.10.2024, PS Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, under Section 13(1)A read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC for alleged withdrawal of a temporary advance of Rs.3,16,58,000/- from the MC Contingency Fund. Bail allowed because: (i) case primarily documentary; (ii) custody since 14.10.2024; (iii) challan of February 2025 with charges unframed and prosecution sanction awaited despite 11 adjournments, making early trial conclusion remote; and (iv) parity with co-accused Pankaj Garg and Rajinder Singh, already enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court and the Supreme Court, only Rs.4,34,692/- remaining unaccounted per State. Observations expressly not on merits; liberty reserved to seek cancellation on misuse of bail.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

209

¶3

CRM-M-10849-2025 Date of decision: July 01, 2025

RANBIR SI N GH

.....Petitione r

Versus

STATE OF P UNJAB

.....Responden t

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

¶10

Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Ad v ocate with Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Advoc a te Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate a nd Mr. Mukul Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punj a b with ASI Gulsher Singh.

¶12

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

¶13

The instant petition is the third petition filed under Section 48 3 of the Bha r atiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to th e petitioner in case FIR No.32 dated 14.10.20 2 4 (Annexure P-1) under Sectio n 13(1)A read with Section 13(2) of the Pre v ention of Corruption Act, 198 8 and Section s 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, regist e red at Police Station Vigilance B ureau, District Ludhiana. 2. Learned Senior counsel appea r ing on behalf of the petitione r contends tha t the petitioner, who was serving as Executive Engineer (XEN ) with the Mu n icipal Corporation (MC), Ludh i ana, has been falsely implicate d in the prese n t FIR, annexed as Annexure P-1. The allegations pertain to th e alleged wro n gful procurement of a sum o f Rs.3,16,58,000/- by way o f temporary a dvance from the Continge n cy Fund of the Municipa l Corporation, purportedly under the pretext o f making payments to PSPCL .

¶14

Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.02 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

CRM-M-10849-2025 -2-

¶16

However, it is submitted that the said amo u nt was neither misappropriate d nor diverted for any personal gain by the pet i tioner. 3. Drawing the attention of this C o urt to the contents of Annexur e P-2, learned Senior counsel submits that the allegations lack substance, a s the petitione r had obtained necessary approvals from the Commissioner o f the Munici p al Corporation before withdr a wing the amount in question . Moreover, o u t of the total advance of Rs.3,16,58,000/-, a substantial amoun t of Rs.3,12,2 3 ,729/- has already been deposit e d back into the bank account o f the Municip a l Corporation. 4. It has been further submitted b y the learned Senior counsel tha t the petitioner has been in custody since 1 4 .10.2024. Although the challa n was present e d in February 2025, charges h ave not yet been framed. Th e likelihood o f the trial concluding in the ne a r future remains remote as th e requisite sanction for prosecution is still aw a ited. Attention is also drawn t o the fact tha t co-accused Pankaj Garg and Rajinder Singh, who stand o n similar footi n g, have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bai l by this Cour t and the Hon’ble Supreme Cou r t. Accordingly, a prayer is mad e for grant of r egular bail to the petitioner.

¶17

Per contra , learned State coun s el has vehemently opposed th e prayer and s ubmissions made by the coun s el opposite, and reiterated th e allegations l e velled against the petitioner a n d argued that the petitioner, i n connivance with co-accused, obtained Rs.3,16,58,000/from th e Contingency Fund of the Municipal Corporation. However, upo n

¶18

Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.02 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-10849-2025 -3-

¶20

instructions, learned State counsel is unable to dispute that only an amoun t of Rs.4,34,6 9 2/- remains to be accounted fo r , while the remainder had bee n duly deposit e d back with the Municipal Cor p oration. Learned State counsel , on further instructions, does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner , nor the stag e of trial. Furthermore, he has n ot denied, on instructions, tha t the similarly situated co-accused have alread y been enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel f or the parties and perused th e relevant mat e rial placed on record. 7. The petitioner, while being posted as XEN with the Municipa l Corporation, Ludhiana during the period 2021-22, is alleged to hav e withdrawn a temporary advance of Rs.3,16 , 58,000/- from the Contingenc y Fund. Howe v er, the said withdrawal was p u rportedly made after obtainin g due approva l from the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, and th e amount exc e pt Rs.4,34,692/- has already be e n deposited back into the ban k account of t h e Corporation.

¶21

Considering that the case is p r imarily based on documentar y evidence, an d given that the petitioner has b e en in custody since 14.10.2024 , with the cha l lan presented in February 2025, but charges yet to be framed, i n view of the sanction having not been acc o rded till date, despite the cas e being adjou r ned by the learned trial Cour t on as many as 11 dates, th e possibility o f the trial concluding in the near future seems remote. 9. In view of these circumstances, and taking into account the fac t that co-accu s ed Pankaj Garg and Rajinder S ingh have already been grante d

¶22

Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.02 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CRM-M-10849-2025 -4-

¶24

the concessi o n of anticipatory bail by this C ourt and the Hon’ble Suprem e Court, the p e titioner is entitled to the similar relief.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant petitio n is allowed, and the petitione r be admitted t o bail on his furnishing bail/su r ety bonds to the satisfaction o f the Trial Co u rt/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶26

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabov e shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of th e case.

¶27

Needless to say, in case the peti t ioner misuses the concession o f bail, the Stat e would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

¶28

July 01, 202 5	(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Jaspreet Kaur	JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶29

Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.02 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Ranbir Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranbir Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Priya Goyal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manpreet Singh Alias Mani Vs State of Punjab

Sukhdev Singh Alias Happy Alias Appy Vs State of Punjab

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Punjab