Ranjit Singh and Another v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

15.06.2023 Punjab State Crime Police Station SAS Nagar, District Crime Wing SAS Nagar, Mohali 406, 420, 120-B IPC

¶1The petitioners incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2Petitioner No.1-Ranjit Singh is silent about his criminal antecedents. However, as per custody certificate of petitioner No.1 and as per paragraph 33 of the bail application and as per the custody certificate of petitioner No.2-Gagandeep Singh, they have the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Station Antecedents of Petitioner No.1-Ranjit Singh

1.

19.02.2021 406, 420, 201, 34 IPC Division No.7, Jalandhar

2.

06.03.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC Navi Baradari

3.

17.04.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC Division No.1, Jalandhar

¶42021 406, 420, 120-B IPC Kutubsher

5.

28.12.2021 406, 420 IPC Bhogpur

¶62020 138 of NI Act - Antecedents of Petitioner No.2-Gagandeep Singh

1.

17.07.2020 406, 420, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, District Jalandhar

2.

25.03.2021 420, 406, 120-B IPC Kutubser, District Saha-ranpur, Uttar Pradesh

3.

20.02.2021 406, 420, 34 IPC Division No. 5, Jalandhar

4.

28.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

5.

31.08.2020 420, 406 IPC Civil Line Jind, District Jind

6.

22.02.2021 420, 406, 120-B IPC Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar

7.

19.02.2021 420, 406, 34 IPC Basti Baba Khel Jal, Dis-trict Jalandhar

8.

19.02.2021 420, 406, 201, 34 IPC Division No. 7, District Jalandhar

9.

06.03.2021 420, 406, 34 IPC Navi Baradani, District Jalandhar

10.

17.04.2021 420, 406, 34 IPC Division No. 1, Jalandhar

¶112021 406, 420, 120-B ipc Division No. 7, Jalandhar

12.

19.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

26.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

14.

20.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

15.

21.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

16.

22.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

17.

25.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

18.

26.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

19.

20.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

20.

27.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

21.

01.10.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

22.

21.10.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

23.

14.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

24.

18.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

25.

18.09.2023 420, 406, 120-B IPC Division No. 7, Jalandhar

26.

19.09.2023 420, 120-B IPC Canttl. Ferozepur, Dis-trict Ferozepur

27.

14.04.2021 420, 406, 34 IPC Division No. 8, Jalandhar

28.

14.04.2021 420, 406, 34 IPC Division No. 8, Jalandhar

29.

14.04.2021 420, 406, 34 IPC Division No. 8, Jalandhar

14.04.2021 420, 406, 34 IPC Division No. 8, Jalandhar

¶312019 420, 406, 34 IPC Rama Mandi, Division No. 8, Jalandhar

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report dated 30.06.2025 filed by the State, which reads as follows: "3. That the brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.9 dated 15.06.2023 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC, PS State Crime, SAS Nagar was registered on the complaint No.310/P.A./Director/BOI dated 03.04.2023 made by Ramandeep Singh Dhami son of Gurmeet Singh Dhami resident of village Bains Khurd, PS Bulowal, District Hoshiarpur against Kanwardeep Singh Bhatia, Sharanjit Kaur, Ritu Sharma @ Rama Rani, Omkar Singh, Ranjit Singh and Gagandeep Singh for indulging in cheating of total amount of Rs.54,84,667/- by their company named as M/s OLS Whizz Private Limited, Jalandar.

¶4That the aforesaid complaint was inquired into by Inspector Kailash Bahadur the Station House Officer, PS Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar, who submitted his report to the office of Director, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab, Chandigarh. Upon approval of the said report by Director, BOI, Punjab, aforesaid case No.9/2023, PS State Crime was registered against the above said persons."

¶4Counsel for the petitioners submits that they would have no objection in case any stringent conditions this Court might put upon the petitioners and in case, petitioners repeat the offence, where the sentence prescribes 07 years or more, the State shall file an application for cancellation of bail. He further contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: "(B) The evidence against the petitioner.

¶16That the Bank Statements of M/s OLS WHIZZ Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar, of which the petitioner/accused Ranjit Singh and co-accused Gagandeep Singh are the Directors as per information supplied by the Registrar of Companies, Chandigarh, have been obtained from the relevant banks, which clearly shows that money collected from the investors was deposited in the said accounts through the online mode and cash transactions. In addition to above, Wallets created by the company itself and receipts obtained by depositing money from the General Public has also been unearthed.

(C) The role of the petitioner.

¶17That the petitioners are the Directors/owners of M/s OLS Whizz Private Limited, Jalandhar. He along with their co-accused used to deposit money in their company by telling his friends/relatives that their company should deposit 11 installments monthly and the 12th installment will be paid by the company itself. After completing the 12th installments the investors will be given money or gold equivalent to the amount. Apart from this, the petitioner also lured the people that as by telling them that more the number of members made by them will reap them more financial benefits. In which foreign tours or domestic goods will be given separately. The general public has been cheated of an amount of around Rs.52,03,067/- by taking them into their trust and giving them more money." REASONING:

¶7There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Per paragraph 20 of the bail petition, the petitioners have been in custody since 23.08.2023. As per the custody certificate dated 02.07.2025, total custody of petitioner No.1-Ranjit Singh is 01 year, 06 months and 16 days and petitioner No.2-Gagandeep Singh in this FIR is 01 year, 06 months and 17 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage

¶8Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioners make a case for bail.

¶9Given above, provided the petitioners are not required in any other case, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the

¶10While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioners shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶11This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.

¶12The petitioners shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶13This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioners

indulge in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶14Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶15A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

¶16Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

23.07.2025 Jyoti-II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 02.07.2025 Pronounced on: 23.07.2025 Ranjit Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab. ****