Parhalad Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Parhalad Singh, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 55 dated 30.03.2024, registered under Section 409 of the IPC at Police Station City Gurdaspur. The petitioner contended that he allowed a contractor to lift wooden logs under the bona fide belief that it would save the Forest Department from loss. He further stated that the contractor was willing to deposit the amount, but delays occurred due to the department not issuing GST invoices. On 29.04.2025, the petitioner voluntarily offered to deposit Rs. 32 lacs with the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate as a gesture of good faith, subject to the outcome of the trial. The Court directed the deposit by 27.05.2025, with the amount to be placed in a fixed deposit. On 28.05.2025, the petitioner's counsel confirmed the deposit, which was not controverted by the respondents.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The primary issue was the petitioner's entitlement to anticipatory bail. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner acted bona fide and that the contractor was willing to deposit the amount, with delays attributed to the non-issuance of GST invoices. Crucially, the petitioner voluntarily offered to deposit Rs. 32 lacs with the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the outcome of the trial. This offer was accepted by the Court, and the petitioner was directed to make the deposit. When the petitioner confirmed the deposit on the adjourned date, the State counsel and counsel for respondent No. 2 could not controvert this fact. Consequently, the Court found no impediment to making the interim order of anticipatory bail absolute. The petitioner was directed to continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and abide by the conditions specified under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 55 dated 30.03.2024, registered under Section 409 of the IPC? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he acted in good faith to prevent loss to the Forest Department and that the delay in payment was due to the non-issuance of GST invoices. He further demonstrated his bona fides by offering to deposit Rs. 32 lacs. Respondents' arguments: The State counsel and counsel for respondent No. 2 did not controvert the petitioner's submission regarding the deposit of Rs. 32 lacs.