CRM-M/27008/2026 of SUBHASH SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 22 July 2026

1. Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.108 dated 25.04.2026, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC, 1860, at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Fazilka; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. On 13.05.2026, the following order was passed:

“Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.108 dated 25.04.2026, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC, 1860, at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Fazilka; the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.

P a g e | 2

Inter alia contends that assuming arguendo, the prosecution version, available at this juncture, is taken to be correct, the petitioner is only stated to be the witnesses to the agreement to sell; the said agreement is of the year 2023 and the target date therein was 20.09.2024, whereas, the FIR in question was registered on 25.04.2026, & the petitioner is willing to join investigation and cooperate therein.

Notice of motion.

On the strength of advance service of copy of petition, Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent – State of Punjab.

Put up on 27.05.2026.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 16.05.2026 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”

3. Learned State counsel (on instructions) has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation and he is not required for custodial interrogation. 3.1

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and in case the petitioner is extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all the likelihood that he may interfere with the investigation as also intimidate the witnesses as also the FIR-complainant.

P a g e | 3

4. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and he is not required for custodial interrogation, the petition is allowed and the order dated 13.05.2026 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

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

6. 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 or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

7. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) 22.07.2026

JUDGE Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No