CRM-M/34454/2026 of AMIT KUMAR @ AMIT GARG Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER on 9 July 2026

1. The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.0146 dated 06.05.2025, registered at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), under Sections 420/120-B IPC 1860 (U/s 318 and 61 of BNS) (during investigation offence under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC were added, however, the same were deleter later on).

2. The case of the prosecution is that complainant along with his JANKI BHATT

partner had purchased two shops from the petitioner vide separate registered sale deeds. However, the petitioner further sold the said shops to one Anirudh Garg and duped the complainant for Rs. 51 Lakhs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Furthermore, a compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the complainant. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 29 days. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the status report by way of affidavit of Ishan Singla, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kharar-1, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and custody certificate in the Court today and the same are taken on record. It has been mentioned in para no. 6 of the status report that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and during investigation offene under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC were added. However, later on Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC were deleted. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 29 days.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant does not deny the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the complainant and further submits that he has no objection if the bail is granted to the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. JANKI BHATT

7. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that there is an amicable settlement between the petitioner and the complainant; the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 29 days; as such, continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the instant order, if the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

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

(H.S.GREWAL) 09.07.2026

JUDGE Janki Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No JANKI BHATT