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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS confirmed: interim order dated 22.01.2025 made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 should be granted (interim bail made absolute) to the petitioner Swarnjit Singh in FIR No. 36 dated 23.10.2023, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Patiala, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 201, 120-B of the IPC, given his alleged role confined to Section 201 IPC and his having joined investigation and cooperated.

Court's answer

Since the petitioner had joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency, and the State did not dispute this and submitted that the petitioner was not required for further investigation or custodial interrogation, the petition is allowed and the interim order dated 22.01.2025 is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-M No. 3410 of 2025 (Swarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided orally on 07.07.2025 by Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.: Anticipatory bail sought under Section 482, BNSS 2023 in FIR No. 36 dated 23.10.2023, PS Vigilance Bureau, District Patiala, under Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 201, 120-B, IPC. At the earlier hearing (22.01.2025) interim bail had been granted after noting that the petitioner's alleged role was confined to Section 201 IPC (deletion of call recordings between co-accused Raghvir Singh and the complainant), that no facilitation of the bribe demand was alleged, that the offence was bailable, and that the petitioner had joined investigation. Having thereafter joined investigation and cooperated, with the State counsel (instructed by SI Karmjeet Singh) not disputing this and submitting that the petitioner was not required for further investigation or custodial interrogation, the Court allowed the petition and made the interim order dated 22.01.2025 absolute, subject to the conditions in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS, 2023.

1

CRM-M No. 3410 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

219 CRM-M No. 3410 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.07.2025

Swarnjit Singh

....Petitioner

V/s

State of Punjab

....Responden t

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present: Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia , Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior DAG, Punjab.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in case FIR No.36 dated 23.10.2023 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Patiala.

On the last date of hearing on 22.01.2025-, while noticing the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked him to join investigation:-

“ At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the only role attributed to the petitioner is under Section 201 of the IPC with respect to deletion of some call recordings between co-accused

ARCHANA ARORA 2025.07.09 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No. 3410 of 2025

2

Raghvir Singh and the complainant. It has been further submitted that other than this, there are no allegations, much less by way of a whisper, that the petitioner had in any manner facilitated the alleged demand of bribe. It has also been submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is bailable and even as per the impugned order, the petitioner had joined investigation.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

compliance of order dated 22.01.2025, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Karmjeet Singh, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for her custodial interrogation.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 22.01.2025, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

July 07,2025 archana

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE

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

ARCHANA ARORA 2025.07.09 09:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document