Dismissed¶8

Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2026CRM-M/6190/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; second petition; Section 482 BNSS; FIR No.98 dated 04.07.2023; Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC; Police Station Balongi, SAS Nagar; dismissal for non-prosecution 21.11.2025; CRM-M-64798-2023; no exceptional circumstances; compromise not honoured; custodial interrogation must; prima facie cheating; Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab; Manisha Batra J.; dismissed 19.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

It is a well settled proposition of law that the powers for grant of pre-arrest bail are to be exercised by the Court in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances and with great caution, while taking into consideration the nature of the accusation and the sentence which the conviction may entail. ¶8

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in the case arising out of FIR No.98 dated 04.07.2023 (Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC), Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar. +3 more

¶1

Court's answer

¶8

Ratio / Principle

In the instant case, no such exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstance was made out from the pleas as taken by the petitioner.

¶8

Key takeaways

The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of the offence of cheating as against the petitioner.ratio¶8
For the purpose of conducting thorough and proper investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must; denial of custodial interrogation would leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely affecting the investigation.ratio¶8
The petitioner has been avoiding joining investigation since long.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Manisha Batra, J., oral) dismisses the second anticipatory bail application preferred by Gurdeep Singh under Section 482 BNSS in FIR No.98 dated 04.07.2023, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC at Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar, arising out of an alleged cheating in a property transaction of total sale consideration of Rs.52 lakhs. His earlier petition CRM-M-64798-2023 had been dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 21.11.2025, his first application having been refused by the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) on 07.12.2023. Holding that the powers for grant of pre-arrest bail are exercisable only in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances and with great caution, that no such circumstance was made out from the petitioner's pleas, that the allegations disclose a prima facie case of cheating necessitating custodial interrogation, and that little relevance can be attached to the alleged compromise (whose terms the complainant said were not honoured), the Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that its observations have no bearing on the merits of the case; pending application(s), if any, were rendered infructuous.

¶1

CRM-M-6190-2026 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(133) CRM-M-6190-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.05.2026

GURDEEP SINGH

. .. Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶10

Present: Mr. Yashjot S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior D A G, Punjab

¶12

No n e for respondent No.2

¶13

¶14

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Th e instant one is the second peti t ion preferred by the petitione r under Section 4 82 of Bharatiya Nagarik Sur a ksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shor t “BNSS”) for gr a nt of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.98 date d 04.07.2023 regi s tered under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC at Polic e Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar. The previous petition bearing CRM- M No.64798-2023 as filed by him had been dis m issed for non-prosecution vid e order dated 21.1 1 .2025.

¶16

Th e aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complain t moved by the c omplainant Randhir Singh al l eging that he owned a hous e measuring abou t 154 Sq. Yds. at Village Mu n di Kharar. He was introduce d

¶17

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶18

CRM-M-6190-2026 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

with the petitio n er by accused Des Raj, who is a property dealer by profession . The petitioner o f fered to buy his property for a t otal sale consideration of Rs.5 2 lakhs. A writte n agreement was executed bet w een them on 10.11.2017. A n amount of Rs.4 0 ,000/- was given by the petiti o ner to him as earnest money a t the outset. A t the time of execution of a greement, another amount o f Rs.4,50,000/- w a s transferred into his bank acc o unt. Subsequently, an amoun t of Rs.17,50,000 / - was transferred in his bank account but the remaining amoun t of Rs.25,10,000 / - was not paid by the petitioner and a cheque given by him ha d also been disho n oured. The petitioner alongw i th the co-accused had forcibl y taken possessio n of his property and also took t he original sale deed as well a s No Objection C e rtificate (NOC) given by the B ank from whom he had take n loan qua the sa m e property. At the time of e xecution of the agreement, th e petitioner had a sked the complainant to trans f er his plot situated at Villag e Raipur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali in his n ame, if he failed to pay th e remaining sale c o nsideration amount but subseq u ently he did not give remainin g sale considerati o n amount and also he refused t o execute any agreement to sel l qua the said plot in his favour rather he sold the s ame to some other persons. B y alleging that th e petitioner and the co-accuse d had caused wrongful loss o f money to him a n d had cheated him, he prayed f o r taking action in the matter.

¶21

Aft e r registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have bee n initiated and ar e underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved a n application for g rant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court o f Learned Additi o nal Sessions Judge, SAS Na g ar (Mohali) vide order date d 07.12.2023. Thereafter, he filed CRM-M-6479 8 -2023 before this Court makin g

¶22

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶23

CRM-M-6190-2026 (O&M) 3

¶24

prayer for gran t of anticipatory bail. Vide o r der dated 06.03.2024, he wa s directed to joi n investigation. During the p endency of that petition, h e undertook to pa y certain amount of money to the complainant. Some of th e agreed amount h ad been paid, however, as on 2 1.11.2025, the petition filed b y him had been di s missed due to non-prosecution.

¶25

It h as been argued by learned co u nsel for the petitioner that th e entire disputed amount of money has been paid by the petitioner to th e complainant. It was only due to the reason that he could not pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the co m plainant earlier, that his previo u s petition had not been allowed . Moreso, his cou n sel could not appear on 21.11. 2 025 as he was busy in his ow n marriage. His c ustodial interrogation is not r e quired. He has already joine d investigation. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶26

Th e respondent No.2 had been a p pearing in person. However , today, none has a ppeared on his behalf. On 14. 0 5.2026, he had stated before th e Court that the p etitioner had not honoured th e terms of the compromise an d hence the petitio n did not deserve to be allowed.

¶27

Per contra, learned State counsel h a s argued that this petition is no t maintainable being the second petition. The r e is no drastic or substantiv e change in the c i rcumstances. The petitioner is misusing the process of law . Custodial interr o gation of the petitioner is mus t for the purpose of conductin g thorough investi g ation. It is, therefore, argued t h at the petition does not deserv e to be allowed.

¶28

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶29

CRM-M-6190-2026 (O&M)

¶30

¶31

Thi s Court has heard the rival sub m issions made by learned counse l for the parties at considerable length.

¶32

As already discussed above, the p r evious petition as filed by th e petitioner had b e en dismissed for non-prosecuti o n. In the said petition also, th e plea that the co m promise has been arrived at be t ween the parties had been take n and a perusal of the zimni orders passed in that p etition reveals that some mone y had been paid b y the petitioner to the complain a nt-respondent No.2. However , the complainant - respondent No.2 while appeari n g in person has submitted tha t the petitioner ha s failed to honour the terms of t he compromise which had bee n arrived at betw e en them as on 15.02.2024. E ven otherwise much relevanc e cannot be given to the compromise allegedly a rrived at between the parties a t some point of ti m e. The petitioner has been avoiding joining investigation sinc e long. The pow e rs for grant of pre-arrest bail a r e to be exercised in exceptiona l and extra-ordin a ry circumstances. However, n o such circumstance appears t o have been mad e out in favour of the petitioner in this case. The allegation s make out a prim a facie case for commission of o ffence of cheating as against th e petitioner. In c ase custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to th e Investigating A g ency, that shall leave many gla r ing loopholes and gaps, thereb y adversely effect i ng the investigation. The Cour t is also required to see that a n order of antici p atory bail does not operate a s inroad in the normal lega l procedure of cri m inal cases by the trial Court. It is well settled proposition o f law that the po w ers for grant of pre-arrest bail a re to be exercised by the Cour t in extra-ordinar y and exceptional circumstanc e s and with great caution whil e taking into cons i deration the nature of the accus a tion and the sentence which th e

¶33

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶34

CRM-M-6190-2026 (O&M) 5

¶35

conviction may e ntail. In the instant case, no su c h exceptional or extra-ordinar y circumstance is, however, made out from the p leas as taken by the petitioner . For the purpos e of conducting thorough and proper investigation custodia l interrogation of the petitioner is must. Takin g into consideration the abov e discussed facts, t his Court is of the considered opinion that the petition deserve s to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶36

It i s made clear that any observati o n made hereinabove is only fo r the purpose of d eciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearin g on the merits of t he case.

¶37

Sin c e the main petition has been d i smissed, pending application, i f any, is rendered i nfructuous.

¶38

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE

¶39

19.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No

¶40

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.20 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Choda Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jaspreet Singh @ Jarman Vs State of Punjab

Leela Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manjot Singh Alias Jotta Vs State of Punjab

Vikram Singh @ Bikram Singh @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Satyam Sood Vs State of Haryana