Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Pre-arrest bail granted: interim order dated 29.01.2025 made absolute subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions; petitioner directed to fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of; State free to seek recall upon any recurrence.

Issue for consideration

Whether pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted to the petitioner in FIR No.06 dated 08.01.2025 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station City Zira, District Ferozepur.

Court's answer

No justification existed to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail, the petitioner having joined investigation and the matter standing amicably settled between petitioner and complainant.

Ratio / Principle

Petition allowed; interim order dated 29.01.2025 made absolute, subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS.

Key takeaways

As an operative term of the bail, the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation.ratio¶9
The observations in the order are confined to deciding the bail matter and are not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶10
In case of any recurrence on the part of the petitioner, the State would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pre-arrest bail – S.482 BNSS – FIR No.06 dated 08.01.2025, P.S. City Zira, Distt. Ferozepur, u/Ss. 420, 465, 467, 471 & 120-B IPC (cheating complainant through criminal conspiracy by forging/fabricating a Will) – petitioner had earlier obtained interim bail vide order dated 29.01.2025, joined investigation, and parties were relegated to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, resulting in an amicable settlement – State Counsel conceded custodial interrogation not required – Court found no justification to deny pre-arrest bail; petition ALLOWED and interim order made absolute subject to conditions under S.482(2) BNSS – petitioner to fully co-operate with Investigating Officer – observations confined to bail question, not merits – State at liberty to seek recall of order on any recurrence. (Decided 12.05.2025 by Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.)

CRM-M-3367-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209

CRM-M-3367-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.05.2025

Bhupinder Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

Present : Ms. Mankirat Kaur Sra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.06 dated 08.01.2025 (P-1), under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station City Zira, District Ferozepur.

Allegations are that petitioner along with co-accused in criminal conspiracy with each other cheated the complainant by forging and fabricating the Will in question.

Contends that petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 29.01.2025 and in pursuance thereof, he has already joined investigation; hence, his custodial interrogation is not required. Also contends that now matter has been amicably settled between the parties i.e petitioner as well as complainant.

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.13 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-3367-2025

2

The above factual position is not disputed by learned State Counsel, on instructions from quarter concerned and submits that his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned Counsel for the complainant also submits that matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-

book.

It transpires that petitioner was granted interim bail by this

Court, vide order dated 29.01.2025 and which reads as under:-

“Contends, inter alia, that petitioner is ready for an amicable settlement with the de facto complainant. Notice of motion.

At this stage, Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, learned A.A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State; seeks time to have instructions and/or to file written response in the matter.

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, causes appearance on behalf of the de facto complainant and on instructions, submits that he is not averse to the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the circumstances, let parties, i.e. the petitioner as well as de facto complainant, be relegated to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 17.02.2025 17.02.2025 17.02.2025, to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between them.

Report of the Mediator be awaited for 17.03.2025. In order to facilitate the mediation proceedings only, till the next date of hearing, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed. ”

It is duly acknowledged by learned State Counsel that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, petitioner has joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel for the complainant has also acknowledged the factum of settlement.

In view of the above, there is no justification to deny the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Consequently, present petition is allowed; interim order dated 29.01.2025 is made absolute subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.13 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-3367-2025

3

It is also made clear that petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for further investigation.

The above observations be not construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case; rather confined only to decide the bail matter. 11. It is also clarified that in case of any recurrence on the part of petitioner, State would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

12.05.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.13 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document