CRM-M-59888 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 105+215 JAGPREET SINGH STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record. 2. 308(4), 351(2), 125, and 111 Section 25 of the Arms Act lodged in Police Station 59888-2025(O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION JAGPREET SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J (ORAL) CRM-50100-2025 This is an application seeking for placing on record certain documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby and the documents annexed with the application are taken on CRM-M-59888-2025 For the commission of offence punishable under Section 308(4), 351(2), 125, and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 25 of the Arms Act, the FIR No. lodged in Police Station Ghuman, District 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-59888-2025(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 09.01.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. This is an application seeking for placing on record certain documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby and the documents annexed with the application are taken on offence punishable under Section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the FIR No.160 dated 13.09.2025 has been , District Batala. Since the petitioner is (O&M) 09.01.2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT This is an application seeking for placing on record certain documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby and the documents annexed with the application are taken on offence punishable under Sections and .2025 has been Since the petitioner is GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-59888 apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case, and anticipatory bail Additional Sessions Judge petitioner is seeking the benefit of petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the Sanhita, 2023 3. abovementioned FIR came into being Singh, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. the above Indian Army, and was village. According to complainant, 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 mobile No.+32466440268. As per complainant, of Rs.50 lacs as ransom and threatened that if the abovementioned amount was not paid, the complainant, his daughter be harmed 4. 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 19.09.2025, and from his possession one countrymade pistol and a magazine containing one live cartridge were recovered. 59888-2025(O&M) 8587 apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case, and anticipatory bail, filed by the petitioner, Additional Sessions Judge Gurdaspur, vide order dated petitioner is seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail by virtue of present petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the Sanhita, 2023’. Briefly stating the facts emerging from reco abovementioned FIR came into being in view of the statement of Sukhdev Singh, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. 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 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 mobile No.+32466440268. As per complainant, 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 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 19.09.2025, and from his possession one countrymade pistol and a magazine containing one live cartridge were recovered. 2 apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case, and the application for has been dismissed by the learned , vide order dated 08.10.2025, the anticipatory bail by virtue of present petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid concession by invoking the provisions enshrined under Section 482 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the 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 residing in a house situated in the outskirts of the 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 s 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 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. application for has been dismissed by the learned .2025, the anticipatory bail by virtue of present petition. The petitioner is claiming the abovesaid concession by invoking the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha rd are that the in view of the statement of Sukhdev It was stated by old complainant that he retired as Captain from residing in a house situated in the outskirts of the settled abroad. It was further stated by the complainant that on 12.09.2025 at about 10:00- 65497 from caller demanded a sum of Rs.50 lacs as ransom and threatened that if the abovementioned amount , would 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 was arrested on 19.09.2025, and from his possession one countrymade pistol and a magazine GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-59888 5. investigation, the above wherein he nominated three persons, namely Bhupinder Singh, Jagpreet Singh (petitioner herein) and Karandeep Singh to prosecution, in view of abovementioned development, Section 111 of BNS was accused Bhupinder Singh was arrested. 6. 7. 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 learned counsel for the petitioner, the only evidence so far collected by the police against the petitioner is learned counsel for the petitioner, is inadmissible in evidence accused Ranjit Singh was already in police custody. 8. counsel for the petitioner that neither the mobile phone used for making threatening by the petitioner, and therefore, any nex of crime and the petitioner is not established. 9. petitioner is a part of group involved in the commission of offence of seeking ransom by threatening peace 59888-2025(O&M) 8587 It is further case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, the above-named accused wherein he nominated three persons, namely Bhupinder Singh, Jagpreet Singh (petitioner herein) and Karandeep Singh to prosecution, in view of abovementioned development, Section 111 of 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 f 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 e by the petitioner, and therefore, any nexus between the alleged commission of crime and the petitioner is not established. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has contended that petitioner is a part of group involved in the commission of offence of ransom by threatening peace-loving citizens. According to learned 3 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 Singh (petitioner herein) and Karandeep Singh, as his co-accused. According to prosecution, in view of abovementioned development, Section 111 of added in 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 f crime, 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 closure statement of co-accused. As per the abovementioned disclosure statement 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 calls belongs to the petitioner, nor any money was ever received us between the alleged commission of crime and the petitioner is not established. , the learned State Counsel has contended that petitioner is a part of group involved in the commission of offence of loving citizens. According to learned It is further case of the prosecution that during the course of suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he nominated three persons, namely Bhupinder Singh, Jagpreet accused. According to prosecution, in view of abovementioned development, Section 111 of added in 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 f crime, 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 the abovementioned disclosure statement in view of the fact that it was recorded when co- In addition to above, it has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the mobile phone used for making ver received us between the alleged commission , 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-59888 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 petit custodial interrogation is necessary in this case. 10. otherwise also, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as petitioner is involved 17.08.2025 Gurdaspur. invoked in this case. 11. 12. investigation qua petitioner is still at nascent stage, and at this stage, without custodial interrogation of the petitioner, the commission of crime cannot 13. for demand of ransom is operandi to the modus operandi without custodial interrogation, the role played by commission of crime cannot be unearth, it is hereby held that in the given fact situation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is neces 14. circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it 59888-2025(O&M) 8587 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 custodial interrogation is necessary in this case. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that otherwise also, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as 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. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, 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 ascerta Here this fact cannot be ignored that 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 commission of crime cannot be unearth, it is hereby held that in the given fact situation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is neces It is well settled principles of law circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it 4 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 ioner in the commission of crime, his custodial interrogation is necessary in this case. It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that otherwise also, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as kind of crime vide FIR No.146 dated , Police Station Ghuman, Police District Batala, District As per learned State Counsel, Section 111 of BNS has also been The record has been perused carefully. rusal of record shows that in the present case, investigation qua petitioner is still at nascent stage, and at this stage, without the role played by the petitioner in be ascertained. this fact cannot be ignored that menace of extending threat in the State of Punjab and the modus involved in the commission of crime is similar 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. principles of law that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it Serviceman, whose children are already settled abroad. As per learned State Counsel, in order to commission of crime, his It has also been contended by learned State Counsel that otherwise also, the petitioner does not have clean antecedents as the kind of crime vide FIR No.146 dated , Police Station Ghuman, Police District Batala, District As per learned State Counsel, Section 111 of BNS has also been rusal of record shows that in the present case, the investigation qua petitioner is still at nascent stage, and at this stage, without the role played by the petitioner in of extending threat modus involved in the commission of crime is similar by the accused in the present case. Since in the commission of crime cannot be unearth, it is hereby held that in the given that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-59888 should not be granted as a matter of rule benefit should circumstances exist 15. case of 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; anticipatory bail is a rule. 16. 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 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. 17. 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 59888-2025(O&M) 8587 should not be granted as a matter of rule benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 ed 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 Shett 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 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 5 should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional extraordinary remedy. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has ed 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 by any stretch of imagination, be said that 'ble Supreme 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 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. 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), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an 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 . Rather as per law the abovesaid be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the , has ed that power to grant 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. e the 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 y alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-59888 18. 1980 SCC (2) 565 19. custodial interrogation of Investiga present case, if such right is den result into miscarriage of justice, as the in headway. 20. abovementioned principles, it transpires that circumstances bail by this Court present petition same is hereby 59888-2025(O&M) 8587 In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Punj 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: (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 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 present case, if such right is denied to the Investigating Agency result into miscarriage of justice, as the in headway. If the fact-situation of instant case abovementioned principles, it transpires that circumstances, warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court, exists in the instant case petition is devoid of merits deserve hereby dismissed. 6 Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Punj , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- 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 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 not be out of place to mention here that right of ting Agency is a valuable right and in the ied 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 warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory case. Thus, it is hereby held that the deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Punjab Procedure Code, is of ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in mentioned in Section 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 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 not be out of place to mention here that right of and in the it is likely to vestigation may not take a proper is analyzed in the light of no such exceptional warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory that the . Accordingly, the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-59888 21. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 22. application Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 59888-2025(O&M) 8587 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. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 7 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. :Yes/No : Yes/No 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 2026.01.09 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document