CRM-M-30809-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CRM-M-30809-2026(O&M) Decided on: 26.05.2026 KULDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER …...Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short - ‘the BNSS’), the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.48 dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 registered at Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran. 2. Allegations against the present petitioner are that on the basis of secret information a raid was conducted at the houses of the accused persons from where 07 drums containing ‘lahan’ were allegedly recovered from the houses of each petitioner, however the petitioners were not apprehended as they had fled from the spot. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case as the entire prosecution story suffers from serious legal infirmities and procedural SONIA PURI 2026.05.29 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30809-2026 (O&M) -2- irregularities. It is further contended that the alleged search and seizure has been conducted in a complete violation of the mandatory safeguards prescribed under the provisions of the BNSS as no independent witness was associated during the alleged recovery proceedings. It is also contended that it is highly improbable that when the raid was conducted consisting of 6 police officials that the petitioners managed to escape from the spot. Learned counsel contended that in fact no recovery was effected and the entire story is concocted one in order to falsely implicate the petitioners. 4. Notice of motion. 5. In pursuance of advance notice, Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, put in appearance and accepted notice on behalf of respondent- State and opposed the grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner while submitting that the petitioners are involved in preparing of illegal liquor and 07 drums of ‘lahan’ each have been recovered from the houses of both petitioners and as such, the present petitioner is required for custodial interrogation for proper investigation. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Heard. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties as well as the allegations against the present petitioners that a huge quantity of ‘lahan’ stored in 07 drums each have been recovered at the houses of the petitioners which is used to prepare illegal liquor. As such, the SONIA PURI 2026.05.29 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30809-2026 (O&M) -3- allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and their custodial interrogation is required to unearth the whole nexus and for proper investigation of the case. 8. In State Represented by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, 1997(7) SCC 187, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation by holding that many useful information and concealed materials may be elicited from a suspect in custody, than a suspect who is well-protected by an order of anticipatory bail, in which case, interrogation may be reduced to a mere ritual. 9. In view of above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 26.05.2026 Sonia Puri Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO SONIA PURI 2026.05.29 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document