Hardeep Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab

Present petition has been fil e d under Section 482 of th e Bhartiya Na g arik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for short ‘BNSS’) for grant o f concession o f anticipatory bail to the petit i oner, in case FIR No.86 date d 17.03.2026, under Sections 420, 120-B o f IPC, 1860, at Police Statio n Amargarh, D istrict Malerkotla.

¶18

On 10.04.2026, the following o r der was passed: “ Prayer in the present petiti o n is for grant of anticipatory bail t o the petitioners in a case FIR No.8 6 dated 17.03.2026, registered unde r Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Amargarh, Distric t Malerkotla.

¶19

It has been vehemently co n tended by learned counsel for th e p etitioners that the petitioners have b een falsely implicated in the presen t case. He has submitted that the dis p ute is purely of civil nature and th e FIR has been registered in order to h a rass and humiliate the petitioners. H e

¶20

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶21

CRM-M-20011-2026

¶22

2

¶23

submits that the petitioner approached learned trial Court for grant of bail, however, learned trial Court dismissed his bail petition vide order dated 07.07.2026, copy of which he could not place on record. He, thus, submits that in the overall fact and circumstance, the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.

¶24

Notice of motion.

¶25

Mr.Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the complainant and opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

Adjourned to 22.04.2026.

¶27

No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing. ”

¶28

2.1. On 24.04.2026, the following order was passed:

¶29

“CRM-16911-2026

¶30

Allowed as prayed for.

¶31

Main case

¶32

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute in question is purely of civil nature.

¶33

Learned State counsel has submitted that vide order dated 10.04.2026, no coercive action was ordered to be taken but there was no direction regarding joining the investigation by the petitioners.

¶34

In view of the above, order dated 10.04.2026, is modified to the extent that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioners shall join investigation before the Investigating Agency/Officer. They shall abide by the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:-

¶35

(i) That the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶36

(ii) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. (iii) That the petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of the court.

¶37

To come up on 08.07.2026. ”

¶38

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶39

CRM-M-20011-2026

¶40

3

¶41

Learned State counsel (on instructions) has stated that pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2026, the petitioner has joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.

¶42

Learned counsel for the complainant, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply dated 20.04.2026, which is already on record, has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, and in case, the petitioner is extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice and interfere in the prosecution evidence.

¶43

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record; especially in view of the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not being sought for by the State; the interim order dated 24.04.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

¶44

Petition stands allowed , accordingly.

¶45

This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not

¶46

be read as granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

¶47

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

¶48

MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶49

CRM-M-20011-2026

¶50

4

¶51