Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamaljit Singh Ladhar vs State Of Punjab on 27 October, 2025
CRM-M-63231-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
101
CRM-M-63231-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.10.2025
Kamaljit Singh Ladhar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Keerat Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab
Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate for the complainant
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.218 dated 26.11.2024 under Sections 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 13(1), 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Khanna City-2, District Khanna.
2. On 18.12.2024 and 28.08.2025, this Court had passed the following orders:-
18.12.2024 "Petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.218 dated 26.11.2024 under Sections 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 13(1), 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Khanna City-2.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Deepender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 05:22:03 ::: CRM-M-63231-2024 (O&M) 2 Adjourned to 24.01.2025.
Learned State counsel is directed to file reply on or before the next date of hearing with a copy in advance to the counsel opposite.
No coercive steps be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing."
28.08.2025 "The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.218 dated 26.11.2024 under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(1), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 1860, registered at Police Station City-2 Khanna, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1).
On 24.01.2025, the following order was passed:-
"Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of the whistleblower and filed his power of attorney, which is taken on record subject to just exceptions.
Short reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana, has been filed in Court, which is taken on record subject to just exceptions. Copy supplied to the counsel opposite.
The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner for extending the concession of anticipatory bail to him on the grounds that the petitioner was the President of the Municipal Council, Khanna (hereinafter referred to as 'M.C.') when the interlocking tiles work was allegedly carried out by the contractor. It has been argued that the contractor did not execute the work, yet a payment of 3.17 lakh was made to him. Further, the investigation revealed that no resolution was passed by the M.C. authorizing any work of the street opposite L-6, Mohalla Guru Harkrishan Nagar, instead of street of Veeru Karyana Store. However, there was no documentary evidence on record to substantiate the claim that the stated location had been erroneously recorded.
Counsel for the State has further contended that the petitioner despite being the President of the M.C., played a conspicuous role in the payment to the contractor for work that was not executed, clearly indicating that he was involved in the conspiracy.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has argued that the petitioner had no supervisory role over the work allocated to the contractor or even for 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 05:22:03 ::: CRM-M-63231-2024 (O&M) 3 the disbursement of money. The role of the petitioner, as per the learned counsel, is on par with, if not lesser than, that of the complainant in the FIR, who is the Executive Officer of the M.C. It has been argued that the complainant was expected to oversee the work allocated to the contractor but strangely, he was not even named as an accused. Furthermore, learned counsel has highlighted that two officers Junior Engineer Ajay Kumar and Rajesh Raini, were specifically responsible for the execution of the work; Ajay Kumar, who allegedly prepared a false report, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail, while Rajesh Raini has not even been named as an accused.
In response, the learned State counsel has refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the role of the complainant is still under investigation, and further clarity is expected in the coming weeks.
In the circumstances, adjourned to 27.02.2025. Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing only."
In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only role attributed to the petitioner that he allegedly failed to supervise the construction work carried out in the street and to undertake necessary postfacto regularization. While drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P-14), learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of political vendetta, a fact which also finds mention in the observations of the learned trial Court. It has still further been submitted that the payment for such construction work was made by the complainant himself, and the entire execution of the work was supervised by Ajay Kumar, JE, Municipal Council, Khanna. Consequently, the petitioner neither had any supervisory role in the matter nor was he responsible for making any payments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that an earlier FIR No.202 dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure P-16) had also been registered against the petitioner at the instance of the same complainant, which corroborates the inimical attitude of the complainant towards him.
Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and appear before the investigating agency, as and when called upon to do so. In the event of his arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) of BNSS, 2023.
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 05:22:03 ::: CRM-M-63231-2024 (O&M) 4 Adjourned to 27.10.2025."
3. Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of the afore-mentioned orders, the petitioner has not only joined investigation but also fully cooperated with the investigating agency. He further submits that in case the investigating agency requires the petitioner to appear, he shall make himself available without demur.
4. Learned State counsel on instructions affirms the factum of joining the investigation by the petitioner and cooperating with the investigating agency.
He also submits that at this stage, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation.
5. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the orders dated 18.12.2024 and 28.08.2025 granting interim bail/protection to him, is hereby made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as specified under Section 482(2) BNSS.
6. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to join and cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the present anticipatory bail granted to him.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
27.10.2025
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 05:22:03 :::