CRM-M-36062-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CRM-M-36062-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Ali Ahmad @ Ali Mohammed ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Paras Jagga, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.98 dated 08.05.2026, registered under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala. 2. As per the allegations, the complainant-company namely B4S Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was entrusted with the maintenance and monitoring of telecom towers. During inspection, an Airtel BBU Samsung BTS Card installed at a telecom tower situated in Village Banera Khurd was found missing, having been stolen during the intervening night of 24.04.2026 by some unknown persons. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and the same are underway. During the course MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36062-2026 (O&M) -2- of investigation, the petitioner, Ali Ahmad @ Ali Mohammed, came to be nominated as the person involved in the commission of the theft. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 20.06.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged occurrence. The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and the petitioner came to be nominated subsequently without disclosing the source of such information. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner is a scrap dealer by profession and is engaged in lawful business. There is neither any eye-witness nor any CCTV footage, technical evidence or recovery connecting the petitioner with the alleged theft. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who had granted interim protection and directed him to join investigation, thereby indicating that custodial interrogation was not considered necessary at that stage. It is argued that owing to his involvement in another criminal case pending before this Court, the petitioner could not join the investigation despite his intention to cooperate. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident, has deep roots in society, is not likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence and is ready to join the investigation as and when called. It is, thus, prayed that the concession of anticipatory bail be granted. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel, who has advance notice of the petition and MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36062-2026 (O&M) -3- is ready to argue the matter, has submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. It is argued that during investigation, the petitioner has surfaced as the person involved in the theft of the Airtel BBU Samsung BTS Card from the telecom tower. The investigation is still at a crucial stage. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the manner in which the theft was committed, recover the stolen property, identify the other persons involved and complete the investigation effectively. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 7. The allegations against the petitioner pertain to the theft of telecom equipment from a telecom tower. Though the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, the petitioner came to be nominated during the course of investigation. The allegations against him are serious in nature. The investigation is still in progress and the investigating agency is yet to ascertain the complete manner in which the offence was committed, recover the stolen property and identify the involvement of other persons, if any. At this stage, custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be said to be unwarranted. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the investigating agency, the same will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps adversely affecting the investigation. The powers under Section 482 of BNSS are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36062-2026 (O&M) -4- decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as inroad in the normal legal procedure of criminal cases by the trial Court. The 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. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 8. 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. 07.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.08 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document