CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 115 Navjot Kaur @ Nav State of Punjab Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 1 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of bearing FIR No. punishable under Sections Mehta, District Amritsar (Rural). arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed on 02.04.2026 of anticipatory/pre 27.05.2026 -31951-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Navjot Kaur @ Nav V/s State of Punjab Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 15.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition is the second attempt under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bearing FIR No.141 dated 30.11.2025 punishable under Sections 25(6), 25(8) of the Arms Act at Mehta, District Amritsar (Rural). The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed .04.2026. The relevant part of said order “2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing for sometime, seeks to withdraw the petition in hand. 3. Ordered accordingly.” Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail has been preferred by the petitioner on 27.05.2026. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31951-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. The present petition is the second attempt under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case 30.11.2025, registered for the offences 25(8) of the Arms Act at Police Station The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre arrest/anticipatory bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn . The relevant part of said order reads as under:- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing for sometime, seeks to withdraw the petition in hand. Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant est bail has been preferred by the petitioner on 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the bail to the petitioner in case , registered for the offences Police Station The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of pre- as withdrawn Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing for Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant est bail has been preferred by the petitioner on AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 2. secret information received by the police to the effect that accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty was engaged in the supply of illicit w ammunition. Acting upon the said information, a raiding party was constituted and the accused was apprehended while travelling on a motorcycle. Upon search, one foreign Kimber Commando Model” .30 bore along with a cartridges were recovered from his conscious possession. Accordingly, FIR in question came to be registered. During the course of custodial interrogation, the arrested accused allegedly suffered disclosure statements which led to th petitioner Navjot Kaur, wife of co 3. petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor apprehended from the spo her implication rests solely accused. effected from of call detail records or statement crime. Learned counsel aged about 29 years and has been implicated only on acc relationship with co main accused therefore, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation. and there is no likelihood of her absconding or influencin -31951-2026 The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of secret information received by the police to the effect that accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty was engaged in the supply of illicit w ammunition. Acting upon the said information, a raiding party was constituted and the accused was apprehended while travelling on a motorcycle. Upon search, one foreign-made pistol bearing mark “COLT Kimber Commando Model” .30 bore along with a cartridges were recovered from his conscious possession. Accordingly, FIR in question came to be registered. During the course of custodial interrogation, the arrested accused allegedly suffered disclosure statements which led to the nomination of several other persons including the present petitioner Navjot Kaur, wife of co-accused Ranjodh Singh @ Bablu. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor apprehended from the spo her implication rests solely on the basis of accused. Learned counsel has further iterated that effected from the petitioner and there is no independent material in the form of call detail records (CDR), financial transactions, documentary evidence or statement(s) of independent witnesses which connect crime. Learned counsel has further contended aged about 29 years and has been implicated only on acc relationship with co-accused Ranjodh Singh @ Bablu. main accused has already been arrested and the weapon has been recovered; therefore, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation. Moreover, the petitioner has deep roots in society and there is no likelihood of her absconding or influencin 2 The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of secret information received by the police to the effect that accused Baljinder Singh @ Bunty was engaged in the supply of illicit weapons and ammunition. Acting upon the said information, a raiding party was constituted and the accused was apprehended while travelling on a made pistol bearing mark “COLT Kimber Commando Model” .30 bore along with a magazine and three live cartridges were recovered from his conscious possession. Accordingly, FIR in question came to be registered. During the course of custodial interrogation, the arrested accused allegedly suffered disclosure statements e nomination of several other persons including the present accused Ranjodh Singh @ Bablu. for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor apprehended from the spot and on the basis of disclosure statement(s) of co Learned counsel has further iterated that no recovery has been and there is no independent material in the form , financial transactions, documentary evidence which connect her with the alleged has further contended that the petitioner is a lady aged about 29 years and has been implicated only on account of her accused Ranjodh Singh @ Bablu. Furthermore, the arrested and the weapon has been recovered; therefore, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to Moreover, the petitioner has deep roots in society and there is no likelihood of her absconding or influencing the investigation. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of secret information received by the police to the effect that accused Baljinder eapons and ammunition. Acting upon the said information, a raiding party was constituted and the accused was apprehended while travelling on a made pistol bearing mark “COLT magazine and three live cartridges were recovered from his conscious possession. Accordingly, FIR in question came to be registered. During the course of custodial interrogation, the arrested accused allegedly suffered disclosure statements e nomination of several other persons including the present that the t and of co- no recovery has been and there is no independent material in the form , financial transactions, documentary evidence her with the alleged lady ount of her the arrested and the weapon has been recovered; therefore, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to Moreover, the petitioner has deep roots in society g the investigation. AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- It has been further argued that investigation enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of the instant petition is 4. anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any procedural grounds and on merits. the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on Court and neither any prayer was made nor petitioner to file afresh with better particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. On merits, l arguing that the as the investigation has disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in a larger network concerning the procurement and transmission of illicit weapons. It has been further conte nominated during the course of investigation on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency and her custodial interrogation is necessary for unearthing the entire conspiracy, tracing the source and destination of illegal weapons and identifying other persons involved in the racket. Given the gravity of the offence and the potential threat to the fair conduct of the trial, it is prayed that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. the dismissal of the petition in hand. -31951-2026 It has been further argued that the petitioner is investigation and cooperate therein as and when required in case she is enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of the instant petition is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on merits. Learned State counsel has submitted that the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on Court and neither any prayer was made nor petitioner to file afresh with better particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score . On merits, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by rguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are grave investigation has disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in a larger network concerning the procurement and transmission of illicit weapons. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been nominated during the course of investigation on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency and her custodial interrogation is necessary for unearthing the entire conspiracy, tracing the source and ion of illegal weapons and identifying other persons involved in the racket. Given the gravity of the offence and the potential threat to the fair conduct of the trial, it is prayed that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the petition in hand. 3 the petitioner is willing to join the and cooperate therein as and when required in case she is enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of the , learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on Learned State counsel has submitted that the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.04.2026 before this Court and neither any prayer was made nor was any liberty granted to the petitioner to file afresh with better particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score has opposed the present petition by against the petitioner are grave in nature investigation has disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in a larger network concerning the procurement and transmission of illicit nded that the petitioner has been nominated during the course of investigation on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency and her custodial interrogation is necessary for unearthing the entire conspiracy, tracing the source and ion of illegal weapons and identifying other persons involved in the racket. Given the gravity of the offence and the potential threat to the fair conduct of the trial, it is prayed that the petitioner does not deserve the Accordingly, a prayer has been made for to join the and cooperate therein as and when required in case she is enlarged on bail. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of the , learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a second petition for anticipatory bail, without substantial change in circumstances, thereby failing both on Learned State counsel has submitted that before this liberty granted to the petitioner to file afresh with better particulars. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the instant petition deserves dismissal on this score has opposed the present petition by in nature investigation has disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in a larger network concerning the procurement and transmission of illicit nded that the petitioner has been nominated during the course of investigation on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency and her custodial interrogation is necessary for unearthing the entire conspiracy, tracing the source and ion of illegal weapons and identifying other persons involved in the racket. Given the gravity of the offence and the potential threat to the fair conduct of the trial, it is prayed that the petitioner does not deserve the Accordingly, a prayer has been made for AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 5. gone through the available record of the case. 6. this Court in a titled as RCR(Criminal) 65 -31951-2026 I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment pass this Court in a titled as Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) RCR(Criminal) 65, relevant whereof reads as under: “11. As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge: I Second/successive anticipatory bail Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether ea withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essent required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circu every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s). V In case a Court chooses to grant se anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed. VI Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non 4 I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) relevant whereof reads as under:- As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully nanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution and have ed by Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3) As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following petition(s) filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is rlier petition was dismissed as prosecution For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to ially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to mstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail cond/successive anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully nanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as prosecution AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or tech that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the initial assessment of the case. petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on i.e. second petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed thereafter on 27.05.2026 forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn and there was no adjudication on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the merits thereof as well. 8. serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the allegations, the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a secret -31951-2026 or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions Court.” The present petition is a second petition for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the initial assessment of the case. The first ant petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on i.e. second petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed thereafter on 27.05.2026. No fresh substantial change in circumstance has been brough forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or circumstance is made out so as to enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn and there was no adjudication on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the merits thereof as well. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the allegations, the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a secret 5 dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions present petition is a second petition for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. A second anticipatory bail petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely nical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the The first anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.04.2026. The instant petition i.e. second petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed thereafter on No fresh substantial change in circumstance has been brough forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn and there was no adjudication on merits thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the instant one on As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the allegations, the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a secret dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions present petition is a second petition for grant of petition is indeed maintainable under law; however, it requires demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier petition. It is a settled proposition of law that such a change must be significant and not merely nical, to warrant reconsideration. This standard ensures that the remedy of successive bail petitions is not misused through repeated filings but is available when new and material factors arise that alter the icipatory bail filed by the . The instant petition i.e. second petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed thereafter on No fresh substantial change in circumstance has been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. From the entire factual conspectus brought forward in the present petition, no fresh ground or enable the petitioner to file and maintain the second anticipatory bail petition. However, since the first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn and there was no adjudication on instant one on As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the allegations, the FIR in question was registered on the basis of a secret AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- information wherein co recovery of one foreign made pistol ‘COLT Kimber Commando Government Model’ .30 bore alongwith three live cartridges was effected. The present petitioner came to be nominated on the basis of statement made by co otherwise, the allegations against the petitioner cannot be brushed aside at this stage. recovery has been effected fro name surfaced during the course of investigation engaged in facilitating the movement and supply of illicit weapons. The allegations relate to offences affecting public order and public safety. circulation of firearms constitute serious offences having far consequences for merely because she is the wife of a co stage. The investigatio yet to be unearthed. The Court, while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidentiary value of the material collected during invest the investigating agency before this Court is that the of the petitioner supply of illegal weapons the alleged conspiracy. from the petitioner also does not advance grant of anticipatory bail adversely affect the efforts of the investigating agency in uncovering the complete ramifications of the crime. -31951-2026 formation wherein co-accused Baljinder Singh was apprehended and recovery of one foreign made pistol ‘COLT Kimber Commando Government Model’ .30 bore alongwith three live cartridges was effected. The present petitioner came to be nominated on the basis of statement made by co-accused during the course of investigation. otherwise, the allegations against the petitioner cannot be brushed aside at this stage. Although the petitioner was not named in the FIR recovery has been effected from her but name surfaced during the course of investigation engaged in facilitating the movement and supply of illicit weapons. The allegations relate to offences affecting public order and public safety. circulation of firearms constitute serious offences having far consequences for Society. The plea that the petitioner has been implicated merely because she is the wife of a co-accused cannot be accepted at this stage. The investigation is still in progress and extent of her involvement is yet to be unearthed. The Court, while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidentiary value of the material collected during invest the investigating agency before this Court is that the of the petitioner may be required for tracing the chain of procurement and supply of illegal weapons as also for identifying other alleged conspiracy. The contention that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner also does not advance rant of anticipatory bail, at this stage, may impede the investigation and adversely affect the efforts of the investigating agency in uncovering the complete ramifications of the crime. Another circumstance which weighs 6 accused Baljinder Singh was apprehended and recovery of one foreign made pistol ‘COLT Kimber Commando Government Model’ .30 bore alongwith three live cartridges was effected. The present petitioner came to be nominated on the basis of disclosure accused during the course of investigation. Even otherwise, the allegations against the petitioner cannot be brushed aside at hough the petitioner was not named in the FIR and but the investigation reflects that her name surfaced during the course of investigation engaged in facilitating the movement and supply of illicit weapons. The allegations relate to offences affecting public order and public safety. The illegal trafficking and circulation of firearms constitute serious offences having far-reaching that the petitioner has been implicated accused cannot be accepted at this n is still in progress and extent of her involvement is yet to be unearthed. The Court, while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation. The stand of the investigating agency before this Court is that the custodial interrogation may be required for tracing the chain of procurement and for identifying other persons involved The contention that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner also does not advance the case of the petitioner. The may impede the investigation and adversely affect the efforts of the investigating agency in uncovering the Another circumstance which weighs accused Baljinder Singh was apprehended and recovery of one foreign made pistol ‘COLT Kimber Commando Government Model’ .30 bore alongwith three live cartridges was effected. disclosure Even otherwise, the allegations against the petitioner cannot be brushed aside at and no that her name surfaced during the course of investigation engaged in facilitating the movement and supply of illicit weapons. The allegations relate to offences ficking and reaching that the petitioner has been implicated accused cannot be accepted at this n is still in progress and extent of her involvement is yet to be unearthed. The Court, while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the The stand of custodial interrogation may be required for tracing the chain of procurement and persons involved in The contention that no recovery is to be effected The may impede the investigation and adversely affect the efforts of the investigating agency in uncovering the Another circumstance which weighs AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- with this Court is the criminal antecedents attributed to the petitioner. Though antecedents alone may not be decisive relevant factor while petitioner is stated to have been involved in other criminal case under the NDPS Act. 9. petitioner does not, by itself, entitled her to the concession of pre Given the seriousness of the offence Court is of the view that the petitioner does not anticipatory bail opinion of this Court, may seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation tampering with evidence or influencing 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 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. At this stage, there is that prima facie which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be establish a reasonable basis for the accusation not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] held as under : (SCC p. -31951-2026 with this Court is the criminal antecedents attributed to the petitioner. ough antecedents alone may not be decisive relevant factor while considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail petitioner is stated to have been involved in other criminal case under the NDPS Act. The contention that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner does not, by itself, entitled her to the concession of pre Given the seriousness of the offence and Court is of the view that the petitioner does not anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand opinion of this Court, the grant of anticipatory bail at this premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation ampering with evidence or influencing the 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. At this stage, there is prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be establish a reasonable basis for the accusation appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] held as under : (SCC p.189, para 6) 7 with this Court is the criminal antecedents attributed to the petitioner. ough antecedents alone may not be decisive factor but they constitute a considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner is stated to have been involved in other criminal case under the that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner does not, by itself, entitled her to the concession of pre-arrest bail. and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of of the case in hand. In the considered the grant of anticipatory bail at this premature stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and potentially result in the material witnesses. 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 (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. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be establish a reasonable basis for the accusation of the petitioner. Thus, it is appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court with this Court is the criminal antecedents attributed to the petitioner. they constitute a . The petitioner is stated to have been involved in other criminal case under the that no recovery has been effected from the arrest bail. the stage of investigation, this the concession of . In the considered the grant of anticipatory bail at this premature stage and potentially result in 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 (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 no material on record to hold The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be of the petitioner. Thus, it is appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would v. Anil Court AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 10. petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The present petition is, thus 11. of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 12. July 14, 202 Ajay -31951-2026 “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 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. 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 the a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The present petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 8 the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is 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 aled. 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 degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court hat 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.” Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. , devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is 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 aled. 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 The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court mselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.15 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document