Amandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab

CRM-M-23225-2025 -1-

(112)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 CRM-M-23225-2025 SURINDER SINGH . .. Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CRM-M-6547-2026 AMANDEEP KAUR . .. Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-23225-2025.

¶5

Mr. Amarpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-6547-2026.

¶6

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶7

Mr. Amaninder Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the complainant.

¶8

¶9

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

¶10

The prayer in the present petitions under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.0078 dated 20.05.2024 registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

¶11

As per the prosecution case, Surinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh received a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- on the pretext of providing jobs to 46

¶12

KUSUM 2026.03.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

¶13

CRM-M-23225-2025 -2-

¶14

aggrieved persons in the Police Department. Amandeep Kaur and Jagdeep Kaur are the wives of Surinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh respectively.

¶15

The learned counsels for the petitioners contend that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. As the petitionerSurinder Singh is in custody since 17.08.2024 and his wife Amandeep Kaur is in custody since 02.09.2025 but none of the 29 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, they are entitled to the concession of bail.

¶16

On the other hand, the learned State counsel has filed a status report dated 10.03.2026 in the case of Amandeep Kaur i.e. CRM-M-6547-2026, which is taken on record. He along with counsel for the complainant, while referring to the status report contend that Surinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh, who has fled abroad received approximately Rs.90,00,000/- from 46 aggrieved persons on the pretext of providing them jobs in the Police Department. Their respective wives are in active conspiracy with them. Therefore, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners do not entitle them to the concession of bail. However, it is not denied that the petitioners are in custody since since 17.08.2024 and 02.09.2025 respectively but none of the 29 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

This Court in the case titled as Maninder Sharma Vs. State Tax Officer, State, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab bearing CRM-M240332021(O&M) Decided on 31.08.2022 has held as under:-

¶19

KUSUM 2026.03.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

¶20

CRM-M-23225-2025 -3-

¶21

“ Therefore, broadly speaking (subject to any statutory restrictions contained in Special Acts) , in economic offences involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrates once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple test is satisfied then denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule. However, this would not prevent the Court from granting bail even prior to the completion of investigation if the facts so warrant.”

¶22

In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioners are in custody since 17.08.2024 and 02.09.2025 respectively but none of the 29 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. There are no serious apprehensions expressed by the State that the petitioners would abscond from justice, tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses if granted the concession of bail. Therefore, in this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioners is not required.

¶23

Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶24

The petitioners shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that they are not involved in any other crime other than the present case.

¶25

The petitioners (or anyone on their behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and deposit the same with the Trial Court.

¶26

KUSUM 2026.03.13 09:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

¶27

CRM-M-23225-2025 -4-

¶28

The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioners from trial without sufficient cause.

¶29

If the petitioner or his family members/associates make any attempt to contact/threaten/intimidate the witnesses in the present case, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted vide this order.

¶30