106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25945-2026 Date of decision: 27.05.2026 BALWINDER SINGH ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab. **** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short - ‘the BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.42 dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short - ‘the Act’) registered at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur. 2. Allegations qua the petitioner are that 5 plastic cans containing 200 litres of lahan were recovered from his residence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the following grounds: i. The petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case; ii. The petitioner has no concern with the premises, from where lahan has been recovered; iii. The petitioner is unable to move and walk as his legs have been operated; MANISHA 2026.05.28 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25945-2026 2 iv. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required as nothing is to be recovered from him; and v. Petitioner is ready to join the investigation as and when required and to cooperate with the investigating agency. 4. In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 07.05.2026, learned State counsel has filed the reply dated 26.05.2026 by way of affidavit of Mr. Gurpreet Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Dhuri, District Sangrur, which is taken on record. As per the reply, the premises from where illicit lahan was recovered belong to the petitioner and he is also involved in one more case of similar nature. Further, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation for proper investigation of the case. 5. Heard. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and contentions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find merit in the present petition on the following grounds: i. The premises from where the lahan was recovered belong to the petitioner; ii. Petitioner is not having clean and clear antecedents and is involved in one more case of similar nature; and iii. Petitioner is required for custodial interrogation for proper investigation of the case. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as ‘CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806’ decided on 03.08.1997, has emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation by holding that many useful informations and concealed materials may be elicited from a suspect in MANISHA 2026.05.28 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25945-2026 3 custody, rather than from a suspect who is well-protected by an order of anticipatory bail, in which case, interrogation may be reduced to a mere ritual. 8. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the allegations against the petitioner, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to him, therefore, the present petition stands dismissed. 9. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial. The learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits strictly in accordance with law. (SUBHAS MEHLA) May 27, 2026 JUDGE Manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No MANISHA 2026.05.28 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document