Prince Singla vs State Of Punjab

Sanjay Vashisth, J

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

Name of petitioner(s)

FIR No

Date

Section(s)

Police Station

District

Prince Singla

179

29.09.2025

316(4), 351(2) of BNS, 2023.

Nihal Singh Wala

Moga

On 28.10.2025, following order was passed:-

"1. xxx

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as per allegations in the FIR, petitioner was employed in the office of complainant Jagdish Kumar, which is being run in the name and style of D.P. Automobile, Proprietor Teena Rani, Nihal Singh Wala. It is an admitted fact that petitioner Prince Singla was employed in the said firm for the last one year. The primary business of the firm is sale and purchase of second-hand cars. One such vehicle, i.e., PB69E-2494, Brezza LDI (O) Model 2017, was purchased on 17.02.2025 from one Satish Kheria, a seller from Delhi, in the name of the petitioner, after obtaining a no-objection certificate from the concerned authority.

After a period of about five months, complainant lodged the present complaint dated 09.07.2025 by allegedly manipulating the facts and asserting that petitioner had committed fraud by getting the vehicle transferred in his own name instead of transferring it in the name of the complainant. Thus, primarily, dispute pertains to the ownership of the said car, whether it was purchased by the petitioner, by the complainant, or by the complainant himself in the name of the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that a civil suit for injunction between the parties is already pending before the Civil Court at Nihal Singh Wala. It is contended that the allegations in the present FIR are purely of civil nature and are required to be established by the prosecution, if at all, only on the basis of documentary evidence, for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted.

Learned counsel lastly argues that the car in question is still in possession of the complainant - Jagdish Kumar. Besides, the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation, if protected from arrest. Accordingly, he prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case.

Notice of motion.

On advance notice, learned State counsel puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent - State, and seeks some time to respond to the submissions addressed by learned counsel opposite, after seeking instructions. And, in case of necessity, to file status report by verifying the submissions addressed by the petitioner's counsel.

Adjourned to 19.01.2026.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court."

Continuing the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 28.10.2025, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, learned counsel prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order.

Learned State counsel on instructions, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 28.10.2025, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.

However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.