CRM-M-60845 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 215-II KARANDEEP STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P 308(4), 351(2), 125, and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 been lodged in Police Station Ghuman, District Batala. Since the petitioner is apprehend anticipatory bail, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gurdaspur, vide order dated petitioner is seeking the benefit of anticipa petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid concession by invoking the 60845-2025(O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION KARANDEEP SINGH @PREETI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Ankit Kharbanda, Advocate for (joined through hybrid mode) Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J (ORAL) For the commission of offence 308(4), 351(2), 125, and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the FIR No.160 dated 13.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Ghuman, District Batala. Since the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case, and the application for anticipatory bail, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gurdaspur, vide order dated petitioner is seeking the benefit of anticipa petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid concession by invoking the 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-60845-2025(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 09.01.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. (joined through hybrid mode) Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 308(4), 351(2), 125, and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and of the Arms Act, the FIR No.160 dated 13.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Ghuman, District Batala. Since the petitioner ing arrest in the abovementioned case, and the application for anticipatory bail, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gurdaspur, vide order dated 23.10.2025, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail by virtue of present petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid concession by invoking the (O&M) 09.01.2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT punishable under Sections 308(4), 351(2), 125, and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and of the Arms Act, the FIR No.160 dated 13.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Ghuman, District Batala. Since the petitioner ing arrest in the abovementioned case, and the application for anticipatory bail, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned .10.2025, the tory bail by virtue of present petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid concession by invoking the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60845 provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. 2. abovementioned FIR came into being in view of the statement of Sukhdev Singh, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above Indian Army, and was residing village. According to complainant, both of his sons were settled abroad. It was further stated by the complainant that on 12.09.2025 at about 10:00 11:00 am, he received a WhatsApp call on his mobile No.94176 mobile No.+32466440268. As per complainant, the caller demanded a sum of Rs.50 lacs as ransom and threatened that if the abovementioned amount was not paid, the complainant, his daughter be harmed. 3. statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation on the basis of secret information, the accused ‘Ranjit Singh’ @R 19.09.2025, and from his possession one countrymade pistol and a magazine containing one live cartridge were recovered. 4. investigation, the above wherein he nominated three persons, namely Bhupinder Singh, Jagpreet Singh and Karandeep Singh to prosecution, in view of abovementioned development, Section 111 of 60845-2025(O&M) 8587 provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are th abovementioned FIR came into being in view of the statement of Sukhdev Singh, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named 58-year-old complainant that he retired as Captain from Indian Army, and was residing in a house situated in the outskirts of the village. According to complainant, both of his sons were settled abroad. It was further stated by the complainant that on 12.09.2025 at about 10:00 11:00 am, he received a WhatsApp call on his mobile No.94176 mobile No.+32466440268. As per complainant, the caller demanded a sum of Rs.50 lacs as ransom and threatened that if the abovementioned amount was not paid, the complainant, his daughter be harmed. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation on the basis of secret information, the accused ‘Ranjit Singh’ @R 19.09.2025, and from his possession one countrymade pistol and a magazine containing one live cartridge were recovered. It is further case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, the above-named accused suffered wherein he nominated three persons, namely Bhupinder Singh, Jagpreet Singh and Karandeep Singh (petitioner herein) to prosecution, in view of abovementioned development, Section 111 of 2 provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the abovementioned FIR came into being in view of the statement of Sukhdev Singh, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by old complainant that he retired as Captain from in a house situated in the outskirts of the village. According to complainant, both of his sons were settled abroad. It was further stated by the complainant that on 12.09.2025 at about 10:00 11:00 am, he received a WhatsApp call on his mobile No.94176-65497 from mobile No.+32466440268. As per complainant, the caller demanded a sum of Rs.50 lacs as ransom and threatened that if the abovementioned amount was not paid, the complainant, his daughter-in-law and his grandson, would e of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation on the basis of secret information, the accused ‘Ranjit Singh’ @Rana was arrested on 19.09.2025, and from his possession one countrymade pistol and a magazine containing one live cartridge were recovered. It is further case of the prosecution that during the course of named accused suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he nominated three persons, namely Bhupinder Singh, Jagpreet (petitioner herein), as his co-accused. According to prosecution, in view of abovementioned development, Section 111 of provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha at the abovementioned FIR came into being in view of the statement of Sukhdev Singh, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by old complainant that he retired as Captain from in a house situated in the outskirts of the village. According to complainant, both of his sons were settled abroad. It was further stated by the complainant that on 12.09.2025 at about 10:00- 497 from mobile No.+32466440268. As per complainant, the caller demanded a sum of Rs.50 lacs as ransom and threatened that if the abovementioned amount law and his grandson, would e of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation on the basis of ana was arrested on 19.09.2025, and from his possession one countrymade pistol and a magazine It is further case of the prosecution that during the course of a disclosure statement, wherein he nominated three persons, namely Bhupinder Singh, Jagpreet accused. According to prosecution, in view of abovementioned development, Section 111 of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60845 BNS was added in accused Bhupinder Singh was arrested. 5. 6. the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, statement, suffered by his co learned counsel for the petitioner, the only evidence so far collected by the police against the petitioner is the disc learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence in view of the fact that it was recorded when co accused Ranjit Singh was already in police custody. 7. counsel for the petitioner that neither the mobile phone used for making threatening calls belongs to the petitioner, nor any money was ever received by the petitioner, and therefore, any nexus betwee of crime and the petitioner is not established. 8. petitioner is a part of group involved in the commission of offence of seeking ransom by threatening peace State Counsel, the victim in the present case is an Ex children are already settled abroad. As per learned State Counsel, in order to ascertain the role played by the petitioner in the commission of crime, his custodial interrogation is necessary in this case. 60845-2025(O&M) 8587 BNS was added in the present case on 22.09.2025 and on 23.09.2025 accused Bhupinder Singh was arrested. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that he is being harassed merely on the basis of a disclosure statement, suffered by his co-accused Ranjit Singh @Rana. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the only evidence so far collected by the police against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of co learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence in view of the fact that it was recorded when co accused Ranjit Singh was already in police custody. In addition to above, it has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the mobile phone used for making threatening calls belongs to the petitioner, nor any money was ever received by the petitioner, and therefore, any nexus betwee of crime and the petitioner is not established. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has contended that the petitioner is a part of group involved in the commission of offence of seeking ransom by threatening peace-loving cit State Counsel, the victim in the present case is an Ex children are already settled abroad. As per learned State Counsel, in order to ascertain the role played by the petitioner in the commission of crime, his custodial interrogation is necessary in this case. 3 the present case on 22.09.2025 and on 23.09.2025 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission and that he is being harassed merely on the basis of a disclosure accused Ranjit Singh @Rana. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the only evidence so far collected by the losure statement of co-accused. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence in view of the fact that it was recorded when co accused Ranjit Singh was already in police custody. tion to above, it has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the mobile phone used for making threatening calls belongs to the petitioner, nor any money was ever received by the petitioner, and therefore, any nexus between the alleged commission of crime and the petitioner is not established. , the learned State Counsel has contended that the petitioner is a part of group involved in the commission of offence of loving citizens. According to learned State Counsel, the victim in the present case is an Ex-Serviceman, whose children are already settled abroad. As per learned State Counsel, in order to ascertain the role played by the petitioner in the commission of crime, his custodial interrogation is necessary in this case. the present case on 22.09.2025 and on 23.09.2025 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission and that he is being harassed merely on the basis of a disclosure accused Ranjit Singh @Rana. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the only evidence so far collected by the accused. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence in view of the fact that it was recorded when co- tion to above, it has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the mobile phone used for making threatening calls belongs to the petitioner, nor any money was ever received n the alleged commission , the learned State Counsel has contended that the petitioner is a part of group involved in the commission of offence of izens. According to learned Serviceman, whose children are already settled abroad. As per learned State Counsel, in order to ascertain the role played by the petitioner in the commission of crime, his GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60845 9. otherwise also, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as the petitioner is involved in similar kind of crime vide FIR No.146 dated 17.08.2025, Police Station Ghuman, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. As per learned State Counsel, Section 111 of BNS has also been invoked in this case. 10. 11. investigation qua petitioner is still at nascent stage, and at this stage, without custodial interrogation of the petitioner, the role played by the petitioner in the commission of crime cannot be asc 12. for demand of ransom is spreading fast in the State of Punjab and the operandi to the modus operandi without custodial interrogation, the role played by petitioner in the commission of crime cannot be unearth, it is hereby held that in the given fact situation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is n 13. circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only w circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 60845-2025(O&M) 8587 It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that otherwise also, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as the petitioner is involved in similar kind of crime vide FIR No.146 dated 08.2025, Police Station Ghuman, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. As per learned State Counsel, Section 111 of BNS has also been invoked in this case. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, the investigation qua petitioner is still at nascent stage, and at this stage, without custodial interrogation of the petitioner, the role played by the petitioner in the commission of crime cannot be ascertained. Here this fact cannot be ignored that menace of extending threat for demand of ransom is spreading fast in the State of Punjab and the adopted by the gang involved in the commission of crime is similar modus operandi adopted by the accused in the present case. Since without custodial interrogation, the role played by petitioner in the commission of crime cannot be unearth, it is hereby held that in the given fact situation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is n It is well settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 4 It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that otherwise also, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as the petitioner is involved in similar kind of crime vide FIR No.146 dated 08.2025, Police Station Ghuman, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. As per learned State Counsel, Section 111 of BNS has also been The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, the investigation qua petitioner is still at nascent stage, and at this stage, without custodial interrogation of the petitioner, the role played by the petitioner in ertained. Here this fact cannot be ignored that menace of extending threat for demand of ransom is spreading fast in the State of Punjab and the modus adopted by the gang involved in the commission of crime is similar dopted by the accused in the present case. Since without custodial interrogation, the role played by petitioner in the commission of crime cannot be unearth, it is hereby held that in the given fact situation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. It is well settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid hen the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that otherwise also, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as the petitioner is involved in similar kind of crime vide FIR No.146 dated 08.2025, Police Station Ghuman, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. As per learned State Counsel, Section 111 of BNS has also been A perusal of record shows that in the present case, the investigation qua petitioner is still at nascent stage, and at this stage, without custodial interrogation of the petitioner, the role played by the petitioner in Here this fact cannot be ignored that menace of extending threat modus adopted by the gang involved in the commission of crime is similar dopted by the accused in the present case. Since without custodial interrogation, the role played by petitioner in the commission of crime cannot be unearth, it is hereby held that in the given It is well settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid hen the Court is convinced that exceptional GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60845 14. case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 observed that power to g that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held bail is a rule, it cannot; anticipatory bail is a rule. 15. further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when ca abovesaid p interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. 16. Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 17. 1980 SCC (2) 5 60845-2025(O&M) 8587 With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when ca said power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita shwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 5 With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has rant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that by any stretch of imagination, be said that Court in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the ower the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita shwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Punjab , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the , has rant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that by any stretch of imagination, be said that mentioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. lled upon to exercise the ower the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita shwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Punjab GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60845 18. custodial interrogation of Investigating Agency is a valuable right and in the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency it is likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may n headway. 19. abovementioned principles, it transpires that no such exceptional circumstances, warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Cour present petition is devoid of merits deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is hereby 20. shall not be constru 60845-2025(O&M) 8587 (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. (ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Sect petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of custodial interrogation of Investigating Agency is a valuable right and in the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency it is likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may n headway. If the fact-situation of instant case is analyzed in the light of abovementioned principles, it transpires that no such exceptional circumstances, warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court, exists in the instant case. Thus, it is hereby held that the present petition is devoid of merits deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 6 The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the ncy or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be ce to mention here that right of custodial interrogation of Investigating Agency is a valuable right and in the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency it is likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a proper situation of instant case is analyzed in the light of abovementioned principles, it transpires that no such exceptional circumstances, warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory t, exists in the instant case. Thus, it is hereby held that the present petition is devoid of merits deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove ed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Procedure Code, is of ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in ion 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the ncy or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be ce to mention here that right of custodial interrogation of Investigating Agency is a valuable right and in the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency it is likely to ot take a proper situation of instant case is analyzed in the light of abovementioned principles, it transpires that no such exceptional circumstances, warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory t, exists in the instant case. Thus, it is hereby held that the present petition is devoid of merits deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove ed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-60845 21. applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 60845-2025(O&M) 8587 Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 7 Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. :Yes/No : Yes/No Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document