CRM-M-17866 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 112 PRINCE RANDEV STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. dated 30.11. 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Patiala. 2. ‘Sanjeeta Rani’, stated by the above the same house, where she was residing, her brother in a separate portion herein), who is the son of 17866-2026 (O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION PRINCE RANDEV VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Aashish Bhagat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for pre-arrest bail is petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 30.11.2025, for the commission of of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station The abovementioned FIR came into being eeta Rani’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that the same house, where she was residing, her brother in a separate portion. According to complaina , who is the son of her another brother 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17866-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 02.04.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.288 , for the commission of offence punishable under Section Sanhita, 2023, Police Station City Rajpura, District FIR came into being at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was named complainant that she was a housewife, and that in the same house, where she was residing, her brother-in-law was also living . According to complainant, Prince Randev (petitioner another brother-in-law, namely Sanjeev .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 288 fence punishable under Section , District at the instance of hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was she was a housewife, and that in law was also living Prince Randev (petitioner Sanjeev GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.03 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17866 Randev, was residing with them. As per complainant, she had kept her jewellery one karra 28.02.2025 opened her missing. 3. made inquiries, she came to know that the petitioner had committed abovementioned theft verified b purchased petitioner Finance’, 4. statement 5. 6. respondent with. No f he has opp 7. 8. the petitioner 17866-2026 (O&M) 8587 was residing with them. As per complainant, she had kept her jewellery comprising of four gold bangles, karra, and one Apple Watch in her purse in the 28.02.2025, on the occasion of wedding of her sister opened her almirah to take out the jewellery, she found that The complainant further alleged that nquiries, she came to know that the petitioner had committed abovementioned theft. As per complaina because within 12-13 days of the incident, purchased a ‘Mahindra Thar’ vehicle. According to complainant, petitioner, subsequently, got the orna , and sold the same to a jeweler and It is the case of the prosecution that statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation Notice of motion. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed formal reply has been filed by th posed the instant petition. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that 2 was residing with them. As per complainant, she had kept her comprising of four gold bangles, one gold chain, four gold rings, n her purse in the almirah, and that , on the occasion of wedding of her sister-in-law’s son, when she jewellery, she found that the same to The complainant further alleged that at her own level, when she nquiries, she came to know that the petitioner had committed ant, the abovementioned fact sto 13 days of the incident, the petitioner had . According to complainant, aments released from ‘Muthoot jeweler and used the money. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned , formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed he learned State Counsel. Howev It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that was residing with them. As per complainant, she had kept her one gold chain, four gold rings, , and that on law’s son, when she o be l, when she nquiries, she came to know that the petitioner had committed the ood had . According to complainant, the ‘Muthoot in view of abovementioned taken up. appears on behalf of State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed ver, It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.03 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17866 offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment upto seven years. It has also been counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and that there is no legally admissible evidence that he was responsible 9. present case, Agency against the petitioner with regard to commission of offence, such as the statem whom the jewelle and that even the jeweler to whom the jewellery was the investigation order to recover evidence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is case. 10. 11. settled principles of law that 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 the extraordinary remedy. 17866-2026 (O&M) 8587 offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment upto seven years. It has also been counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and that there is no legally admissible evidence was responsible for the abovementioned Per contra, the learned State present case, sufficient link evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner with regard to commission of offence, such as ment of the official working in the office of ‘Muthoot Finance’, to whom the jewellery was handed over for raising and that even the jeweler to whom the jewellery was the investigation in the present case. According to learned State Couns order to recover the abovementioned jewellery , custodial interrogation of the petitioner is The record has been perused carefully. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect 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 the extraordinary remedy. 3 offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment upto seven years. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and that there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner to sh for the abovementioned theft. the learned State Counsel has contended that in the evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner with regard to commission of offence, such as official working in the office of ‘Muthoot Finance’, to ry was handed over for raising the loan, has been record and that even the jeweler to whom the jewellery was sold has been joined in in the present case. According to learned State Counsel, in the abovementioned jewellery and to collect the relev , custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the inst The record has been perused carefully. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is 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 offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and how Counsel has contended that in the evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner with regard to commission of offence, such as official working in the office of ‘Muthoot Finance’, to ded, sold has been joined in el, in vant tant As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is 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 exist for GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.03 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17866 12. India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has 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 that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. 13. case has judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be ve interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. 14. Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Mahar Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the 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 offence. 15. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Ind 17866-2026 (O&M) 8587 With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary , and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be ve 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 Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Mahar Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the 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 offence. In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Ind 4 With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary , and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned 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 abovesaid 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 Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the 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 offence. In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- With regard to such situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary , and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned 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 ry cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita ashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the 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 In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.03 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17866 16. here that there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner that his uncle, and that after the theft, he purchased a vehicle stolen gold jewellery 17. custodial interrogation of the present case, if such right is den likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway requisite e 18. above-discussed 17866-2026 (O&M) 8587 (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. (ii) 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. (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. In the present case, at the very outset it is pertinent to ment here that there are very specific and categorical allegations against the petitioner that he was responsible for the commission of theft in the house of , and that after the theft, he purchased a vehicle stolen gold jewellery with ‘Muthoot Finance’ It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of custodial interrogation of the Investigating Agency is a valuable right the present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation proper headway and the Investigating Agency evidence. If the fact-situation of instant case discussed principles of law, it transpires that 5 The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the t 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 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 In the present case, at the very outset it is pertinent to ment here that there are very specific and categorical allegations against the he was responsible for the commission of theft in the house of , and that after the theft, he purchased a vehicle, by pledging with ‘Muthoot Finance’ It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of ting Agency is a valuable right, and in ied to the Investigating Agency it is likely to result into miscarriage of justice, as the investigation may not take a Investigating Agency may not be able to collect situation of instant case is analyzed in the light of , it transpires that no such exceptional The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the t 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 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 In the present case, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention here that there are very specific and categorical allegations against the he was responsible for the commission of theft in the house of the It shall not be out of place to mention here that right of and in it is may not take a the is analyzed in the light of no such exceptional GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.03 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17866 circumstances exist in this case, which may call for the jurisdiction hereby held Accordingly, the same is 19. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 20. application 02.04.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 17866-2026 (O&M) 8587 mstances exist in this case, which may call for the jurisdiction, vested in this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. hereby held that the present petition is devoid of merits 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. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. .2026 (SURYA PA Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 6 mstances exist in this case, which may call for the exercise of for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, it is is devoid of merits deserves dismissal 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. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No exercise of the it is dismissal. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.03 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document