Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Third Anticipatory Bail to Gurpreet Singh Accused of ₹4.5 Lakh Job Fraud; Cites Public Trust and Seriousness of Offence
Case Name: Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab & Others
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-60711-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed Gurpreet Singh’s third petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a cheating and conspiracy case involving ₹4.5 lakh taken from victims under the pretext of securing government jobs. Justice Sumeet Goel held that the petitioner failed to show any substantial change in circumstances since his earlier bail rejections, and the allegations reveal a premeditated, organized act of deception that undermines public confidence. The Court emphasized that offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy affect not only the victims but also erode trust in public recruitment integrity.
Summary: The petitioner, along with co-accused Lakhvir Singh, was accused of inducing complainants Gurvinder Singh and Amarjit Singh to pay ₹4.5 lakh in exchange for government jobs, with ₹1.4 lakh transferred directly to Gurpreet Singh’s account. After failing to secure the promised jobs, the accused stopped responding, leading to registration of FIR No. 203 of 2023 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station City Sangrur. Gurpreet Singh filed two earlier anticipatory bail petitions, both withdrawn without liberty to reapply. He argued that the dispute was settled through a written compromise dated August 29, 2025, and that he had refunded the amount. The State opposed, citing active involvement, misuse of his bank account for fraud, and the need for custodial interrogation to trace the money trail.
Justice Goel ruled that successive bail petitions are maintainable only upon showing a material change in circumstances — which was absent in this case. He observed that repayment does not erase criminal liability for cheating, especially when deception impacts public trust. The Court noted that the compromise did not absolve the petitioner, as cheating and conspiracy are non-compoundable offences. Citing State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Court held that custodial interrogation was essential for effective investigation.
Decision: The Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the money trail and uncover the full extent of the conspiracy. It reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, reserved for exceptional cases, and cannot be granted in serious economic offences affecting public trust.