Harmander Singh vs. State Of Punjab

CRM-M/33720/2025HC Punjab and HaryanaGSTCNR PHHC01097788202523 April 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH6 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, Harmander Singh, sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered under various sections of the BNS (corresponding to IPC) and the IT Act. The FIR was initially lodged on 27.05.2025, with further sections added on 15.09.2025. The petitioner had previously served the complainant-company, Satia Industries Limited, from 1991 until April 2024. The allegations stemmed from a complaint made by the petitioner to the GST and Income Tax Departments via email on 18.04.2025, which the complainant alleged was a precursor to blackmail. The petitioner argued that any grievance should be addressed through civil remedies and that IT Act offences are bailable. The complainant alleged misuse of company data and blackmail post-retirement. An interim anticipatory bail was granted on 02.07.2025, with directions to join the investigation and deposit his passport. The case was adjourned for amicable resolution. Later, the complainant alleged the petitioner misused interim bail by demanding ransom in December 2025 in connivance with others, related to a separate FIR (No. 232 dated 30.12.2025). The petitioner stated he had already been granted regular bail in that separate FIR.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had joined the investigation and, in response to the State's contention about the voice sample, the petitioner fairly submitted readiness to provide it if granted an opportunity. The Court noted that the petitioner had already been granted regular bail in the separate FIR concerning the ransom demand, a fact not disputed by the complainant. Given these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to make the ad-interim anticipatory bail absolute. The Court directed the petitioner to continue joining the investigation as and when required and to abide by all conditions under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. Crucially, the order was made subject to the petitioner furnishing his voice sample within two weeks and depositing his passport (or filing an affidavit of non-possession) within one week. The Court clarified that non-compliance with these conditions would render the order non est. The Court's reasoning for confirming bail was based on the petitioner's compliance with joining the investigation, the resolution of the separate ransom demand issue through regular bail, and the conditional nature of the final order regarding the voice sample and passport.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of blackmail and misuse of company data, and the nature of the offences under the IT Act? 2. Whether the petitioner has complied with the interim anticipatory bail conditions, specifically regarding cooperation with the investigation and the furnishing of a voice sample? 3. Whether the allegations of ransom demand in December 2025, linked to a separate FIR for which the petitioner has obtained regular bail, warrant denial of anticipatory bail in the present case? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that his complaint to GST and Income Tax departments was a legitimate action, and any harm to the company should be pursued through civil law. He argued that IT Act offences are bailable and that he was ready to cooperate with the investigation if protected from arrest. He also stated he had joined the investigation and was ready to provide his voice sample if given an opportunity. He further submitted that he had already secured regular bail in the FIR related to the ransom demand. Respondent's (State and Complainant) arguments: The State argued that the petitioner had not fully cooperated by failing to provide his voice sample. The complainant opposed the bail, alleging misuse of company data, blackmail, and misuse of interim bail by demanding ransom. The complainant's counsel did not dispute the fact that the petitioner had obtained regular bail in the FIR concerning the ransom demand.

Sections Cited

Section 482, Section 482(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

CRM-M-33720-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CRM-M-33720-2025 (O&M) Decided on: 23.04.2026 HARMANDER SINGH …...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the complainant. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. CRM-12427-2026 1. Present application has been moved by the applicant/petitioner for placing on record copy of the amended petition, vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed by this Court. 2. Notice in the application. 3. On advance notice, Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant, and Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab, puts an appearance on behalf of the respondent/State, and raise no objection, if prayer made in the present application, is allowed. 4. Considering the averments mentioned in the present application, prayer made therein is allowed. LAVISHA 2026.04.23 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-33720-2025 (O&M) 2 5. Registry is directed to tag the amended petition appended with the present application, at the appropriate place with the file. 6. CM stands disposed of. CRM-M-33720-2025 1. 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 & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Harmander Singh, aged about 61 years 93 27.05.2025 308(2), 316(2), 351(2) of BNS (corresponding to sections 384, 406 and 506 IPC) and Sections 65, 66 of I.T. Act [offence under sections 316(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) of BNS (corresponding to sections 408, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC) added later on, vide GD No.35 dated 15.09.2025] Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib Sri Muktsar Sahib 2. On 02.07.2025, following order was passed:- “1. xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that petitioner had served the complainant-company i.e. Satia Industries Limited, from the year 1991 until April 2024. In this regard, reliance is placed upon a certificate dated 13.03.2024 issued by the complainant-company itself, wherein the petitioner’s commendable career and valuable contributions were acknowledged. The certificate reflects that the company was fully satisfied and indebted for the useful services rendered by the petitioner during his long tenure. 3. With respect to the allegations that petitioner, after his retirement, engaged in acts of blackmailing, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a complaint dated 18.04.2025, which was LAVISHA 2026.04.23 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-33720-2025 (O&M) 3 addressed by the petitioner to the GST and Income Tax Departments via email. It is submitted that the said complaint is currently under inquiry/investigation, and even if the complainant- company claims the allegations to be frivolous, such a complaint cannot form the basis for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner under the alleged offences. Learned counsel also argues that if any harassment, humiliation, or reputational damage was caused to the company on account of the said complaint, appropriate remedy available to the complainant-company was to seek damages under the relevant civil laws, rather than resorting to criminal prosecution. 4. Further, it is submitted that any offence, if at all committed as alleged by the complainant- company, would fall within the purview of the Information Technology Act, and such offences are bailable in nature. Moreover, petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to fully cooperate, if protected from arrest by this Court. Thus, prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case. 5. Notice of motion. 6. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appeared on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divij Datt and Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocates, put an appearance on behalf of the complainant. 7. Counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner, submitting that petitioner’s conduct since his retirement has been humiliating. It is contended that petitioner is misusing the company’s data, which has allegedly been stolen by him, and that after retirement, he has been blackmailing the company on various pretexts. 8. Adjourned to 17.09.2025. 9. 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.). LAVISHA 2026.04.23 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRM-M-33720-2025 (O&M) 4 10. 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. 11. Let the petitioner and representatives of the complainant – company be present before this Court, on the next date of hearing to find out solution to resolve the dispute amicably.” 3. Continuing his submissions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 02.07.2025, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated. Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim

anticipatory bail order.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that although, the petitioner has joined investigation, but he has not fully cooperated, as he failed to provide his voice sample.

In response, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was never called upon to furnish his voice sample. However, it is fairly submitted that petitioner is ready to provide the same, if one opportunity is granted to him.

Opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant contends that petitioner has misused the concession of interim anticipatory bail already granted by this Court. It is submitted that in December 2025, a ransom amounting to Rs.300 crores was allegedly demanded by accused persons in connivance with the present petitioner, by issuing forged letters LAVISHA 2026.04.23 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

CRM-M-33720-2025 (O&M) 5 purportedly emanating from the Enforcement Directorate, in connection with FIR No. 232 dated 30.12.2025. 7. In response to this, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in relation to the allegations arising out of FIR No. 232 dated 30.12.2025, petitioner has already been granted regular bail by the competent Court.

This factual position has not been disputed by learned Senior Counsel for the complainant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10.

Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation; ad- interim bail order dated 02.07.2025, 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. 11. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

12.

It is made clear that present order shall be subject to furnishing of voice sample by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from today, before the concerned Magistrate.

13.

It is further directed that present order shall also be subject to depositing of passport by the petitioner with the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned, if he is in possession of the same, within a period of one week from today. In the alternative, petitioner shall file an affidavit stating that he does not possess any passport. LAVISHA 2026.04.23 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

CRM-M-33720-2025 (O&M) 6

14.

It is clarified that in case, aforesaid conditions are not complied with, this order would be considered as non est automatically.

15.

With the directions issued here above, present petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 23.04.2026 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO LAVISHA 2026.04.23 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.