Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

CRM-M-31779-2025 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

110

CRM-M-31779-2025 Date of decision: 06.06.2025

Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Jatinder Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.63 dated 13.04.2025, under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station, Khanna City-2, Police District Khanna, District Khanna.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the father of the accused and no specific allegations have been levelled against him in the FIR and the case pertains to loan which was to be deposited by a person who purchased the car. He further contends that this Court in CRM-M-31013-2025 titled as Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab , granted interim bail to Kuldeep Singh son of the petitioner. Therefore, he be also granted anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of Court, Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and contends that it has

Yogesh Mehta 2025.06.06 17:47 I agree to specified portions of this document

CRM-M-31779-2025 [2]

been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in its order dated 21.05.2025 that despite being granted interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner had not joined the investigation and had not produced the car in question before the investigating agency, consequently his bail application was dismissed.

Since, the petitioner despite availing concession of interim bail granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has neither joined the investigation, nor produced the car in question before the investigating agency, recovery of which is yet to be effected, for which his custodial interrogation is required, therefore, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

06.06.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Yogesh JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

Yogesh Mehta 2025.06.06 17:47 I agree to specified portions of this document