CRM-M-26236-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CRM-M-26236-2026 Date of decision: 26th May, 2026 Rohit and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Harjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioners seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 20 dated 17.01.2026 registered under Sections 310, 304, 115(2), 3(5) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant Tanish Gaba, alleging therein that on 17.01.2026, he along with his partner Dinesh Kumar, was present in his rice sheller, when at about 12:30 p.m., petitioners No. 1 and 3 i.e. Rohit and Mani @ Jagroop, respectively reached there in a Chevrolet Cruze vehicle. After alighting from their vehicle, they forcibly started taking rice bags kept in the rice sheller and started shifting them into the boot of their car. When the complainant and his workers tried to stop them, they took out deadly weapons PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26236-2026 -2- and opened assault upon his labourers, thereby causing injuries to them. Thereafter, they took away all the rice bags and fled from the spot. At that time, accused Amandeep Kaur and her husband i.e. petitioner No.4 Kamaljeet @ Monu @ Sohan Singh were also present at the gate of rice sheller and were keeping a vigil. They helped in opening the main gate of the sheller and assisted in fleeing of the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh snatched the mobile phone of the partner of the complainant. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They were working as labourers in the rice shellers of the complainant. On the fateful day, they were asking for their salaries from the complainant, who wanted to expel them from their jobs without settling their salary accounts. The co-accused Amandeep Kaur was also amongst them. She was seriously injured by the complainant and his accomplices and they had merely rescued her and had taken her to the hospital. Injuries were caused to the other labourers who were present with them with datars and kirpans. A compromise has now been arrived at between the parties and a written compromise has been executed on 20.03.2026. They are ready to join the investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required, No recovery is to be effected from them. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26236-2026 -3- 4. Learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature. By hatching a conspiracy with each other, they had taken away all the rice bags from the rice sheller of the complainant and when they were tried to be stopped, they had assaulted the complainant and Dinesh Kumar. When the other labourers of the complainant tried to stop them, they were also assaulted by the petitioners. It is argued that for thorough and proper investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioners along with the co-accused, are alleged to have committed the offences of robbing the complainant of rice bags from his sheller and assaulting his labourers. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of the subject offences against the petitioners. For the purpose of conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, their custodial interrogation is required. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, thereby adversely affecting the investigation. The well settled proposition of law is that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses. The powers under Section 482 of BNSS are to be exercised in extraordinary and sparing PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26236-2026 -4- circumstances. More so, custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS. Many useful information can be disinterred during custodial interrogation. It has also to be seen that an order of anticipatory bail does not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. It is also a matter of discretion to grant or not to grant pre-arrest bail. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no extraordinary or sparing circumstance entitling the petitioners to seek concession of pre-arrest bail has been made out rather their custodial interrogation is required for thorough investigation in the matter by the police. Accordingly, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 26th May, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document