Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/35769/2026 of BHUPINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 21 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35769-2026 Date of decision :21.08.2026 BHUPINDER SINGH ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar Pannu,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
!"#$!%&'&"()*+,+ -
.++! & &"(!. /!.'0'
- +++!'1"($!( ) 23 +- - -
Present: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar Pannu, Asstt. A.G., Punjab. **** - -
4+ The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.150 dated 23.10.2025 initially registered under Sections 331(4), 305 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 454, 380 IPC) [Sections 318(4), 338, 335(3), 340(2), 61 of BNS (420, 467, 464, 471, 120 IPC, 1860) added later on] at Police Khui Khera, District Fazilka.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Sourav Singh son of Baldev Singh and the same reads as under: “
!" # $
% &'()(*(+,-,.
$# /
0 1 1 2'33
JITESH LAL
!!44
1 20#
5 00 6
#7$'!3,,,$#
0
0# 1 .
$8+)*+,*!,!3
0# 1
2
/ 0.0
00
(9,,1#
#
$ 8+(*+,*!,!31.0 '9,,5 .1
10
0$.
6
#
#
$ : .
# /
$8 # 10 ;<
+)=+(*+,* !,!3$
1
# $:#. 1
# /
00 # # $. $>
#
1
# $=*
2
$?
3. On 07.12.2025, Bhupinder Singh son of Sant Singh submitted a complaint to the police that some unknown persons had stolen his tractor Sonalika, Engine No.4100ELU54H@1609069F32 which was in the name of his son Komalpreet Singh. As the place of occurrence was the same, a DDR No. 25 dated 03.01.2026 was recorded in the aforementioned FIR regarding the complaint of Bhupinder Singh son of Sant Singh. On 27.01.2026, Bhupinder Singh son of Sant Singh, along with his son Komalpreet Singh came to P.S. Khui Khera in the company of Nishan Singh S/o Natha Singh and produced their tractor Sonalika JITESH LAL
with a trolley, which had been stolen by some unknown persons as per their complaint. Komalpreet Singh son of Bhupinder Singh, owner of the said Sonalika tractor and trolley stated that Bhupinder Singh (present petitioner) S/o Baldev Singh and an unknown person had stolen their tractor and trolley and the said accused had fraudulently mortgaged the ₹ same to Nishan Singh son of Natha Singh for 4,30,000/@. Nishan Singh was accompanying Bhupinder Singh and Komalpreet Singh and produced the forged Aadhaar card, bill of the tractor Sonalika and Forms 29 & 30, which were given by the accused at the time of the mortgage. The statement of Nishan Singh was recorded by the Investigating Agency stating that he had been cheated by the petitioner ₹ and his co@accused by fraudulently taking 4,30,000/@ from him on the pretext of having mortgaged a tractor@trolley with him, which actually belonged to Komalpreet Singh S/o Bhupinder Singh S/o Sant Singh. Nishan Singh also stated that they had prepared a video on the mobile phone where the unknown person, co@accused of the present petitioner and the present petitioner were representing that the unknown person was the owner of the tractor@trolley. The video clip was handed over to the Investigating Agency. The tractor@trolley was subsequently taken on Superdari by Komalpreet Singh. The petitioner was nominated as an accused vide DDR No. 30 dated 27.04.2026 for having stolen the Swaraj tractor of Saurav Singh S/o Baldev Singh, the Sonalika tractor and trolley of Komalpreet Singh S/o Bhupinder Singh and for having JITESH LAL
₹ received 4,30,000/@ fraudulently from Nishan Singh by mortgaging to him the tractor and trolley belonging to Komalpreet Singh son of Bhupinder Singh.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is a delay of 7 days in the registration of the FIR. The petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of the supplementary statement of Komalpreet Singh, which would amount to hearsay evidence. As per the prosecution case, the co@accused had projected himself as Pritam while selling the tractor allegedly stolen from Bhupinder Singh S/o Sant Singh and subsequently sold to Nishan Singh. The allegations are vague, omnibus and lack specific details regarding the role of the petitioner and no overt act has been attributed to him of impersonation and/or forgery of documents. As the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. A reply dated 06.08.2026 by way of an affidavit of Balwinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Fazilka, District Fazilka has been filed on behalf of the State by the learned counsel for the State. The same is taken on record. While referring to the reply, he contends that the petitioner is firstly, an accused in the theft of the tractor belonging to Sourav Singh S/o Baldev Singh (complainant). He is also an accused in the theft of the tractor@trolley belonging to Komalpreet Singh S/o Bhupinder Singh S/o Sant Singh, JITESH LAL
which he, along with his co@accused, subsequently mortgaged to Nishan ₹ Singh for a sum of 4,30,000/@ on the basis of forged documents. It is Nishan Singh who accompanied Bhupinder Singh S/o Sant Singh and his son Komalpreet Singh S/o Bhupinder Singh to the police station to get recorded their respective statements regarding the theft of the tractor@ trolley and the consequential cheating. As the offense is 0
established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required, particularly when he is a serial offender.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:@ “.# 0
# 00
70 %$+ * #
$.1
0 0
.
8
@
70 %$+
0 0
$
#
1 70%$+
@
JITESH LAL
1
A
#
0 #
$
1
1
0
;00
<
0 #
0 #
#A
$:0
1 0
#A
1 # 6
1
0 #
88 0 #A
0 #
@
$ !
" #$ % "! " !"" & # & ! " !" $ "&" ' % (" % !
" #$ # & )
" # " !"!
" "( $ ( " ! (" !" $ "&" "
" !"% $" "$ # &"" & " " & !
" #$ " $ "&" ! # " "( $
! " # !"
$"& " & " $ ! &
$!" *& !
" #$ ) # ! ! !" $ "&" "( !! " # ' % # " "
(! ! & !! "$ # &" " " $""* "$ # & !
" #$ ) ( (" " & !" & !
" #$
$!" "$ !"
(! !
& !! ) ( % "( "(( ! "$ # $""* " $"& "(
" $ "&" ! # " "( & " "
!$ !" $ "&" +" % ( !" $ JITESH LAL
"&" " ' " ! % $(% !" # & " " & !
" #$$
8. The relevant extract of the reply dated 06.08.2026 enumerating the role of the petitioner is as under:@ B(7 0
*: 0
*
7$-$", 0
%
# #
0
# 1
#0
$$
!&C",$:0
#
0
$ '$ : 0
$ :
0
@
# 1 2 7$-$",1 10
0
.7
@
$ DDD DDD DDD +,$ :
.7
@
0
1
9* ,"
- . ," "$! " +$ .7%$)-+($,)$!,+' ="(& -++. $$5
1 !$ .7%$'!+)$,"$!,+& ="(& !,+-)3-)(-)'-(+-("-++. $$
'>
"$ .7%$(-,!$,3$!,!" =!+ !&)+'3 % 5 $$
#
9. As the offense is 0
established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial JITESH LAL
interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary, and therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
10. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
11. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for the purposes of deciding this bail petition and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made herein. - -
*+,+ - 56! 6!.'1! 7&(89.! '"(!$)!'9" JITESH LAL