Peter Masih v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Jul 2025CRM-M/1940/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-1940-2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Chandigarh), decided 02.07.2025 by Justice Sanjay Vashisth (oral). Regular bail granted to petitioner Peter Masih (FIR No. 86 dated 13.07.2023, P.S. Kartarpur, Jalandhar; Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 13, Punjab Travel Professionals Act, 2014) on grounds of parity with co-accused Sakattar Singh Bhullar, filed challan, and protracted trial (1/19 witnesses examined). Alleged amount Rs. 31.00 lakhs; Rs. 12.00 lakhs stated to have moved through petitioner's bank account. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted; petitioner to be released on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case; petition disposed of. ¶¶30

Peter Masih Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, booked in FIR No. 86 dated 13.07.2023 (PS Kartarpur, Jalandhar) under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals Act, 2014, should be granted regular bail during the pendency of his trial.

¶¶15

Court's answer

The Court finds substance in the petitioner's submissions; a similarly situated co-accused, Sakattar Singh Bhullar, has already been granted bail and culmination of trial shall take considerable time, leading the Court to consider all aspects and grant the concession of bail.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

In view of the totality of circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

The petitioner shall not extend any threat to, and shall not influence, any prosecution witness directly or indirectly.obiter¶¶31
The observations made in the order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case; the Trial Court is to decide the case on the basis of the complete evidence available on record.obiter¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) granted to Peter Masih, arraigned in FIR No. 86 dated 13.07.2023, P.S. Kartarpur, District Jalandhar, under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals Act, 2014. Grounds: parity with similarly situated co-accused Sakattar Singh Bhullar, already granted bail; challan/final report filed after completion of investigation; trial at a nascent stage with only one of 19 prosecution witnesses examined, so its conclusion would take considerable time; offence triable by the learned Magistrate. The State could not dispute the factual contentions and did not deny that the petitioner had already been granted bail in another similar case. Bail ordered subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds, with a direction against threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses; observations expressly not to be treated as an opinion on the merits.

¶1

CRM-M-1940-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

209

¶5

CRM-M-1940-2025 Decided on : 02.07.2025

Peter Masih

. . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. Kewal Singh, Advocate and Ms. Sushma Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶12

Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

¶15

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:-

¶16

Name of	FIR	Date	Section(s)	Police	District
Petitioner(s)	No.			Station
Peter Masih	86	13.07.2023	406, 420 of IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals Act, 2014	Kartarpur	Jalandhar

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegations an amount of Rs.31.00 lakhs had been taken by the petitioner and his other coaccused. However, as per the transactions in the Bank account of the petitioner, only an amount of Rs.12.00 lakhs has been transferred.

¶18

Further submits that co-accused of the petitioner, namely; Sakattar Singh Bhullar, has already been granted concession of regular bail. Besides, after completion of investigation, final report has already been

¶19

JAWALA RAM 2025.07.03 18:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-1940-2025 - 2 -

¶21

submitted and process of recording of statements of the witnesses has just started, as out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far. Therefore, conclusion of trial shall take considerable time.

¶22

Counsel also points out petitioner is inside jail since 20.09.2025 and the offence is triable by the Court of Ld. Magistrate, therefore, further custody of the petitioner will not be of any use for the prosecution, more for the reason that after completion of investigation, challan has already been filed.

¶23

Therefore, counsel prays for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶24

On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in appearance and submits that petitioner is involved in one more case of similar nature. However, there is no denial that in the said case, petitioner has already been granted concession of bail. Apart this, learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute any of the factual contentions addressed by the petitioner’s counsel.

¶25

After hearing the learned counsel for both parties and carefully perusing the relevant material on record with their able assistance, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Furthermore, similarly situated co-accused, i.e., Sakattar Singh Bhullar, has already been granted concession of bail and culmination of trial shall take considerable time, this Court deems it appropriate to consider all aspects of the matter.

¶26

In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed here-above, I deem it

¶27

JAWALA RAM 2025.07.03 18:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-1940-2025 - 3 -

¶29

appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.

¶30

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed . Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

¶31

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶32

The observation made here-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.

¶33

Petition stands disposed of.

¶34

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶35

July 02, 2025 J.Ram

¶36

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶37

JAWALA RAM 2025.07.03 18:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Peter Masih v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peter Masih 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

Raj Kumar Alias Paiya Vs State of Haryana

Navpreet Singh & Others Vs State of Punjab

Raman @ Bagri Vs State of Haryana

Shankra Nand Parbat Vs State of Punjab and Others

Karam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kaku Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another