Jaspreet Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Jaspreet Singh, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 20 dated 23.01.2026, registered at Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda. The FIR was registered under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his brother, Harpreet Singh, availed two loan facilities totaling Rs. 8,53,972/- and Rs. 8,85,774/- for purchasing tractors. They allegedly submitted forged identity documents, including PAN and Aadhaar cards, to obtain these loans. The petitioner was a co-applicant in the loan availed by his brother. The complainant discovered discrepancies in the identity documents and alleged that the tractors were misappropriated in connivance with an official of the financial institution. The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, on 07.02.2026.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and specific, and the case was at its nascent stage. It reiterated the settled proposition that anticipatory bail is to be granted in exceptional circumstances only, and the powers for granting such bail are to be exercised with great caution. The Court noted that the petitioner was alleged to have duped the complainant by availing loan facilities on the basis of forged documents and had not deposited any instalments thereafter. The Court found that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was necessary for conducting a thorough and proper investigation. It concluded that the petitioner had not made out any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance to warrant the grant of anticipatory bail, and therefore, the petition deserved to be dismissed. The Court clarified that any observations made were only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and would have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC, considering the allegations of availing loan facilities on the basis of forged documents and non-payment of instalments? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) BNS, Section 61(2) BNSS, and principles of anticipatory bail). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that no loan amount was disbursed to him, nor did he submit any documents. He contended that the case was based on documentary evidence and that his custodial interrogation was not required as the requisite documents were already with the investigating agency. He further argued that he deserved the benefit of anticipatory bail. Respondent's arguments (State and complainant): The State and complainant argued that the allegations were serious and specific. They contended that the petitioner and his brother availed loan facilities by executing documents and failed to pay even a single instalment. They highlighted variations and discrepancies in the identity documents, including forged KYC documents and incorrect dates of birth in Aadhaar and PAN cards. They also presented documents related to the sale of tractors and argued that custodial interrogation was necessary for a thorough investigation. They asserted that no exceptional or extraordinary grounds were made out for granting anticipatory bail.