Jasdeep Singh Sidhu Vs State of Punjab

Prayer in this petition has been made by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.69 dated 06.08.2025 registered under Sections 140(3), 308(2), 351(2), 351(3), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Amir Khas,

¶15

MANJU 2026.05.29 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶16

CRM-M No.15781 of 2026

¶17

-2-

¶18

District Fazilka. Previously also, he had filed a petition before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.01.2026.

¶19

The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Prakash Singh alleging therein that on the noon of 30.07.2025, he received a call from mobile No.8699732270. The caller told him that he had come to collect some medicine from him and was standing near Amir Khas canal. He also told him that since he did not know the location of his house and address, therefore, he was unable to reach at his house and made request to come to canal and pick him up. On his asking, the complainant on his motor bike went towards the Amir Khan canal. On reaching there, he found a youth to be present there. As soon as, the complainant reached there, he grabbed him by collar of his shirt. In the meanwhile, six persons reached there in two cars. The complainant identified one of them as Karan Singh. They forcibly pulled him inside the Swift car. One of them pointed a pistol towards him. They took him to a deserted house wherein he was stripped of his clothing. The accused Karan Singh along with another made a video recording of the complainant in that condition and then all of them extended beatings to him. They raised demand of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and threatened to make his video viral if he did not pay the abovesaid amount. They also snatched his cell phone and after checking details of his bank accounts, started transferring money from his various

¶20

MANJU 2026.05.29 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶21

-3-

¶22

CRM-M No.15781 of 2026

¶23

accounts to their own accounts. Thereafter, he was made to sit in their car and was left at the same place from where he had been abducted. The complainant on reaching his house checked his bank details and found that an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- had been transferred from his bank accounts to different accounts. By alleging that the accused Karan Singh was the mastermind of the crime, he prayed for taking action against the culprits.

¶24

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway.

¶25

As per the further allegations, the complainant recorded a supplementary statement on 08.09.2025 on the basis of which the present petitioner, Tarsem Singh and Dharampreet Singh were nominated as accused. Accused Karan Singh was arrested on 24.09.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Apprehending his arrest, the present petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide order dated 17.10.2025.

¶26

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded by the complainant which has no basis. Even the FIR itself had been recorded after a gap of seven days from the date of alleged incident. No specific role has been attributed to him. He is ready to join

¶27

MANJU 2026.05.29 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶28

-4-

¶29

CRM-M No.15781 of 2026

¶30

the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. A compromise has been arrived at between the parties and dispute amongst himself and the complainant has been amicably settled. The complainant had even sworn an affidavit in this regard. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶31

Learned counsel for the complainant has affirmed the factum of compromise. It is submitted by him that a petition seeking quashing of the FIR by way of compromise is also pending before this Court and also that he has no objection, if the petition is allowed.

¶32

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He was one of the abductors of the complainant and actively participated in the occurrence. He got transferred an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the bank account of the daughter of the complainant and an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- from the bank account of the complainant on the day of occurrence by making transactions from the phone of the complainant. His antecedents are not clean. There are chances of his committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶33

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

¶34

The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have abducted the complainant on the fateful day and then to have extorted

¶35

MANJU 2026.05.29 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶36

-5-

¶37

CRM-M No.15781 of 2026

¶38

money from him by using the cell phone of the complainant and transferring money from his bank account. An amount of Rs.2,70,000/was transferred in the bank account of the petitioner from the account of the complainant and his daughter. His complicity in the subject crime prima facie appears to have been established. A settlement is shown to have been arrived at between the complainant and himself. Though not much relevance can be given to the terms of the compromise so effected, however, given the nature of the allegations and the circumstances peculiar to this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that pre trial incarceration of the petitioner is not required. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail, subject to his surrendering before the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of this order and joining investigation. On his surrender within that period, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer on furnishing personal/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction. He shall also follow these conditions:-

¶39

(i) the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating officer/Arresting officer as and when required during the course of investigation.

¶40

(ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

¶41

MANJU 2026.05.29 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

¶42

CRM-M No.15781 of 2026

¶43

-6-

¶44

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

¶45

(iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. (iv) He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶46

(iv) He shall deposit his passport if any, with the jurisdictional Magistrate/trial Court.

¶47

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 11. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶48

	(MANISHA BATRA)
27.05.2026	JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶49

MANJU 2026.05.29 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh

Jasdeep Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasdeep Singh Sidhu 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

Satish Vs State of Haryana

Balwinder Singh Dhanoa Vs State of Punjab

Ram Alias Ram Parshad and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amrik Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jagtar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Deepak Vs U.T Chandigarh