Arun Sarin Vs State of Punjab

Gaurav Ralhan, seeking grant of anticipatory bail, in case, FIR No.222, dated 16.12.2024, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC and section 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana (now section 67 of IT Act, has been deleted).

¶35

On 13.02.2025, following order was passed in CRM-M-

¶36

6992-2025:-

¶37

“ CRM-5892-2025

¶38

Application for placing on record copy of Resignation Letter dated 24.11.2021 as Annexure P-6 and letter dated 05.01.2022 issued by complainant company as Annexure P-7.

¶39

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Annexures P-6 & P-7 are taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶40

Main case

¶41

Contends, inter alia, that sole basis for registration of FIR No.222 dated 16.12.2024 is the alleged breach of contractual obligation(s) between the parties and even offence under Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has not been made out against the petitioner.

¶42

On request of learned State counsel, posted for 27.02.2025.

¶43

In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join investigation before the Investigating Officer, but he be not arrested till the next date of hearing.”

¶44

On 10.06.2025, following order was passed in CRM-M-

¶45

31968-2025:-

¶46

“Contends, inter alia, that co-accused Arun Sarin has already been granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025, passed in CRM-M-6992-2025 (P-14) and moreover, during investigation, Section 67-A of the Information

¶47

LAVISHA 2026.04.09 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶48

CRM-M-6992-2025 CRM-M-31968-2025

¶49

3

¶50

Technology Act, 2000 has already been deleted by the police.

¶51

Notice of motion.

¶52

Mr. Prit Inder Pal Singh, learned Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent; seeks time to have instructions and/or to file written response in the matter.

¶53

Mr. Sushant Kareer, Advocate (who is assisting Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate) has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the de facto complainant and which is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶54

Posted for 23.07.2025.

¶55

In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join investigation before the Investigating Officer; but he be not arrested till the next date of hearing. To be heard along with CRM-M-6992-2025.”

¶56

Continuing the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in compliance of the orders dated 13.02.2025 (in CRM-M-6992-2025) and 10.06.2025 (in CRM-M-31968-2025) passed by this Court, petitioners have joined the investigation, and have fully cooperated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail orders.

¶57

Learned State counsel, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioners of joining the investigation by the petitioners.

¶58

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶59

Since, both the petitioners have already joined the investigation; ad-interim bail orders dated 13.02.2025 (in CRM-M-69922025) and 10.06.2025 (in CRM-M-31968-2025), passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petitions are allowed.

¶60

However, petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

¶61

LAVISHA 2026.04.09 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶62

CRM-M-6992-2025 CRM-M-31968-2025

¶63

4

¶64

Accordingly, both the petitions stand disposed of.

¶65

However, present order would be subject to the submission of passport of the petitioners to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if they possess, within a period of one week from today. Otherwise, they would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that they do not possess any passport.

¶66

It is clarified that in case, aforesaid condition is not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically.

¶67

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.

¶68

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶69

09.04.2026 Lavisha

¶70

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/ NO Whether Reportable: YES/ NO

¶71

LAVISHA 2026.04.09 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

Arun Sarin v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Sarin 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

Raj Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amit Yadav Vs State of Haryana and Another

Joga Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Gupta Vs State of Haryana

Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Kumar @ Bhinda Vs State of Punjab