Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate for for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab. Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL ....Petitioner ....Petitioner ....Respondent ....Respondent Section 482 of Bharatiya Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Present petition has been filed under Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the (earlier Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the for grant of anticipatory bail to the (earlier Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. in case bearing FIR No.153 dated registered for the dated 17.05.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 308 (4) offences punishable under Sections and Section 25 (4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar of the Arms Act, 1959 , at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar.

#2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant, FIR in question is that the complainant, namely, Jasdeep Singh, allege d that on 12.05.2026 and 14.05.2026, he received Jasdeep Singh, alleged that on 12.05.2026 and 14.05.2026, he received d that on 12.05.2026 and 14.05.2026, he received 01814 from a person claiming threatening calls on his mobile phone No.98554-01814 from a person claiming threatening calls on his mobile phone No.98554 threatening calls on his mobile phone No.98554 to be associated with the Randhawa Gang, demanding a ransom of ₹50,00,000/- - to be associated with the Randhawa Gang, demanding a ransom of to be associated with the Randhawa Gang, demanding a ransom of stered under Section . Pursuant thereto, FIR No.148 dated 15.05.2026 was registered under Section . Pursuant thereto, FIR No.148 dated 15.05.2026 was regi . Pursuant thereto, FIR No.148 dated 15.05.2026 was regi It was 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Beas. It was 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at P 308(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at P two unidentified persons riding a motorcycle, with their further alleged that two unidentified persons riding a motorcycle, with their two unidentified persons riding a motorcycle, with their further alleged that faces covered, had arrived in front of the showroom and the pillion rider fired faces covered, had arrived in front of the showroom and the pillion rider fired faces covered, had arrived in front of the showroom and the pillion rider fired faces covered, had arrived in front of the showroom and the pillion rider fired 2026 39153----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----39153 20262026 39153 39153 2222 7–8 gunshots at the shutters with the intention to kill them, after which they fled towards Raiya.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been implicated into the FIR in question only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Harkirat Singh @ Kirat, which is not admissible in law. Learned counsel has submitted that no specific role and/ or injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that there is nothing available on record to show complicity of the petitioner with the offence in question.

3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

#4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Given the severity of the offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of 2026 39153----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----39153 20262026 39153 39153 3333 effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.

#5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

#6. As per the prosecution case, it is borne out that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is alleged that two unidentified motorcycle-borne assailants, with their faces covered, arrived outside the complainant’s showroom, where the pillion rider fired 7–8 gunshots at the shutters before fleeing towards Raiya. A perusal of the prosecution case, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner, being a member of the unlawful assembly, actively participated in the alleged occurrence.

6.1. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

#7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective 2026 39153----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----39153 20262026 39153 39153 4444 997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) State v. Anil Sharma (1(1(1(1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma 997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) State v. Anil Sharma State v. Anil Sharma 1039]1039]1039]1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ““““6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.””””

#8. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused.

#9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, dismissed. thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed

#10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

#11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 20 , 2026 July 20, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 July 20 July 20 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No