CRM-M/31321/2026 of SUBA SINGH AND ANR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 16 July 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31321

104 ( 104 ( 104 ( 104 (2nd nd nd nd case) case) case) case) IN T IN T IN T IN T

Suba Singh a

State of Punj

Date of Deci Date of Deci Date of Deci Date of Deci Date of Uplo Date of Uplo Date of Uplo Date of Uplo

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

Present Present Present Present:

SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO

Bhartiya Nag concession o 18.04.2026, Kabirpur, Di

2. p 1-2026

) HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR CHANDIGAR

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31321

31321-2 and another

versus ab

ision: sion: ision: sion: July 16 July 16 July 16 July 16, 2026

oading: oading: oading: oading: July 16 July 16 July 16 July 16, 2026

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM Mr. Jaswinder Singh Randhawa (presence marked through video presence marked through video presence marked through video presence marked through video Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate for ***** ***** ***** ***** OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been file garik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( of anticipatory bail to the petitio under Section 303(2) of the strict Kapurthala. On 04.06.2026, the following or “This petition for pre-arrest petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the 2023’. It has been filed with regard dated 18.04.2026, for the commission 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2 Kapurthala.

2. Notice of motion.

3. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D respondent-State. Hence service of dispensed with.

4. Heard.

B AND HARYANA AT B AND HARYANA AT B AND HARYANA AT B AND HARYANA AT RH RH RH RH

....Petitioners

....Respondent MEET GOEL MEET GOEL MEET GOEL MEET GOEL , Advocate for the petitioners o-conferencing conferencing conferencing conferencing). Punjab. r the complainant. ed under Section 482 of the (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of oners, in case FIR No.19 dated BNS, 2023, at Police Station rder was passed: bail is the first petition filed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, d to a case arising out of FIR No.19 n of offence punishable under Section 2023, Police Station Kabirpur, District DAG Punjab appears on behalf of f notice upon the State is hereby

s t e f d n e a, n t f y MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31321

31321-2026

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the genesis of dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is of ex parte civil Court money decree for recovery of Rs.1,58,871/-, qua which the execution petition is pending before the learned Executing Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, for the recovery of abovementioned decreetal amount, the standing crop of the petitioner was attached by the learned Executing Court on 31.07.2025, and the abovementioned order was challenged before this Court. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lacs in the Registry and permitted the petitioner to harvest the standing crop. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in view of abovementioned events, the possession of the agricultural land continued with the petitioner only, but without transfer of possession, the complainant lodged the FIR for the commission of theft of standing crop in the land.

6. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that the petitioner has not approached this Court with bona fide intentions, and that he is guilty of not complying with the decree passed by the Civil Court. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that the decree has already become final, as the petitioner has lost the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court. While claiming that despite approval of decree by Hon’ble Apex Court, when the petitioner failed to pay money, his land was attached. It has further been contended by learned State Counsel that the petitioner has no right to cultivate or harvest the standing crop and thus, they are responsible for the commission of offence, for which they have been prosecuted. The learned State Counsel has sought for dismissal of present petition.

7. The record has been perused carefully.

8. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:-

i. that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

ii. that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment up to three years;

iii. that the genesis of dispute between the parties is a civil Court decree, i.e. for a sum of Rs.1,58,871/- and the abovementioned amount already stands cleared in view of direction issued by this Court in compliance of which the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.2 lacs in the Court;

iv. that apparently there is nothing on record to show that the possession of the land, where the crop was cultivated, was ever transferred to the complainant or anybody else; v. that the investigation and trial are not likely to be concluded in near future;

vi. that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not likely to produce a fruitful result;

vii. that detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;

viii. that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and

ix. that there is nothing on record to show that while on interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the investigation.

9. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for interim anticipatory bail.

10. Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31321

31321-2026

bonds to the satisfaction of arresting officer. However, in the meantime the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. He shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

11. List on 13.07.2026.

12. Let status report and detailed reply, if any, be filed by the State by next date.

13. To be shown in urgent list.

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

3. Learned State counsel (on instructions) has stated that pursuant to the order dated 04.06.2026, the petitioners have joined investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature, and in case, the petitioners are extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that they may abscond from the process of justice and interfere in the prosecution evidence. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record; especially in view of the factum of the petitioners having joined investigation and their custodial interrogation is not being sought for by the State; the interim order dated 04.06.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

6. Petition stands allowed allowed allowed allowed, accordingly.

7. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read as granting petitioners 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. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-31321

31321-2026

8. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioners violate any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

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

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 16 July 16 July 16 July 16, 2026

mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.16 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment