High CourtsSingle Bench

Jaskaran Singh vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 5 June 2026 · Citation: (2026) 06 P&H CK 0256

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Moudgil, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21 · Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 480(3), 482, 482(2) · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 376 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 3(5), 64
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 32976 Of 2026 (O&M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 666 words

Sandeep Moudgil, J

1.

Prayer

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 307 dated 22.12.2025 under Sections 64/3(5) BNS, 2023 (376/34 IPC) registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bathinda. (P-1).

2 Contention

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR is a result of a honey trap and has been lodged with the sole intent of extorting money from the petitioner. It is contended that after the alleged incident, unlawful monetary demands were repeatedly made from the petitioner and his family, initially amounting to ₹5,00,000/- and subsequently escalating to ₹40,00,000/-.

Learned counsel argues that mere allegation of involvement of the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny him the protection of law and infringe his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, moreover, the matter has been compromised between the parties, therefore, he deserves the concession of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel informs the Court that main accused Swaranjeet Singh has already been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2026 passed in CRM-M-15230-2026 (P-4).

Notice of motion.

On behalf of the State/complainant

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rajiv Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel, upon instructions, submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, he is not in a position to oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant also submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and she has no objection if the concession of anticipatory bail is extended to the petitioner.

3.

Analysis

Be that as it may, without commenting upon the merits of the case, and keeping in view the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and learned counsel for the complainant and learned State Counsel has no objection if the concession of anticipatory bail is extended to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that there is no valid or cogent reason to deny the bail to the present petitioner, wherein he has bona fide intentions and is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the Investigating Agency in time.

4.

Relief:-

Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of 10 days from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which are reproduced below:-

'When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.'

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within a period of ten days, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stands cancelled.

In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands allowed.