Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 2026
CRM-M No.1039 of 2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
206
CRM-M No.1039 of 2026
Date of decision: 04.02.2026
Balwinder Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. Nishant Sehgal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
----
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
15 11.11.2025 Cyber Crime Police 318(4) and 61(2) of the
Station, District Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
Fazilka 2023 (For short "BNS")
and 66(C) and 66(D) of
Information Technology
Act, 2000
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 04:49:56 ::: CRM-M No.1039 of 2026 -2- are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant Bhura Ram @ Kamal alleging that he was running a society under the name of Guru Kul Education Welfare Society from the past several years. All the donations received by the society were properly accounted for and maintained in the bank account of the society as per Government rules. On 25.11.2024, a general meeting of the society was held. The petitioner had also attended the same. He along with the co-accused had induced the complainant to give his identity proof, customer ID and password of the account of the society on the premise of donating money to the society. Believing the petitioner and the co-accused, the complainant had shared those details. On 01.12.2024, the petitioner and co-accused Jagdish Singh called the complainant on his phone and convinced him to share the OTP to be received by him by showing that they were transferring some money on account of donations in the accounts of the society. The complainant shared the said OTP received by him after sometime. Subsequently, he came to know that the entire money deposited in the account of the society had been withdrawn and a cheque of Rs.2 crores issued by the society had been dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. On contacting the petitioner, he kept on putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. By alleging that the petitioner in connivance with the co- accused had procured his email ID, mobile number, bank linked 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 04:49:57 ::: CRM-M No.1039 of 2026 -3- credentials and then after changing them in a fraudulent manner, had caused huge loss to him, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter. After receipt of the complaint, an inquiry had been conducted and it was revealed that approximately, an amount of Rs.2.18 crores had been withdrawn from the bank account of the complainant/society on 06.12.2024 and was transferred to different accounts by the petitioner and the co-accused. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide order dated 12.12.2025.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case only on suspicion. He is not a beneficiary of any transaction as neither any amount of money was credited in his account nor has been traced to the same. No material is there to connect him with the allegations as levelled in the FIR. The complainant who is running a society is fully aware of banking procedures and it is improbable that he would share his OTP, banking credentials or customer ID to the petitioner. The entire case is based on documentary and digital evidence and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at all. Infact, the complainant himself is involved in illegal financial transactions and 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 04:49:57 ::: CRM-M No.1039 of 2026 -4- several criminal cases have been registered against him. No recovery is to be effected from him. He is ready to join investigation. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Status report has been filed. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific in nature. For conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is required. No exceptional circumstance for grant of pre arrest bail is made out. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
6. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused had committed fraud with the complainant by dishonestly obtaining his bank credentials and caused fraudulent transactions thereby causing wrongful loss to him. The case is at its nascent stage. For conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, his custodial interrogation is must. In case, the same is denied to the investigation agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, adversely affecting the investigation. The custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of anticipatory bail. The powers of anticipatory bail are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, no such exceptional 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 04:49:57 ::: CRM-M No.1039 of 2026 -5- circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
7. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
04.02.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 04:49:57 :::