105 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-38280 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 Pawan Kumar ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Surya Partap Singh, J. 1. This petition for anticipatory bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 78 dated 08.06.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 109, 115(2) & 3(5) of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ and Section(s) 25 & 27 of ‘the Arms Act, 1959’, Police Station Arniwala, District Fazilka, Punjab. 2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Ramesh Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as “complainant” only. It was stated by the above named complainant that on 07.06.2026 at about 09:30 P.M., in response to a call received from Helpline No. 112, he along with ‘Home Guard Baljinder Singh’ went to ‘Gang Canal Road’ where they spotted an ‘Innova car’ occupied by two/three persons. According to complainant the car was parked there in a suspicious circumstance and when DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-38280 of 2026 2 they approached the car, the occupants of the car, who were two/three in numbers, fired gun-shot on the police party, but the police party narrowly escaped from being hurt from gun-shot. The complainant further stated that thereafter, the driver of the car tried to run the car over them and in the above-mentioned incident he had suffered multiple injuries. 3. It is the case of prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that there is no evidence against the petitioner, whatsoever. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, merely, on the basis of some secret information, the police officials are trying to arrest the petitioner. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire case is based on the plea that on the basis of some information, about some suspicious item lying on the ‘Gang Canal Road’ the police party had reached the spot, but any such item has not been recovered. While claiming that a false story has been cooked-up by the police, the benefit of bail has been sought for the petitioner. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-38280 of 2026 3 8. The learned State counsel has controverted the above- mentioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that the allegations in the present petition are for the commission of offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS, and that fire arm was used by the assailants. According to the learned State counsel in order to fix role of the petitioner in the commission of crime and to recover the weapon of offence, his custodial interrogation is necessary. The learned State counsel has further contended that the petitioner does not have clean antecedents, and that two cases under the ‘NDPS Act’ are pending against him. 9. The record has been perused carefully. 10. A perusal of the record shows that in the present case the benefit of anticipatory bail is being sought by the petitioner. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail, and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the above said benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 11. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar’ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has 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 that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above-mentioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-38280 of 2026 4 judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the above 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. 13. Similarly, in the case of ‘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], the 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 of India, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 14. In the case of ‘Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab’ 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only; ii) 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; and 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. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-38280 of 2026 5 15. If the facts and circumstances of the present care are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that:- a) firstly, in the present case the role and identity of petitioner in the commission of offence are, yet, to be fixed; b) secondly, the weapon of offence is still to be recovered; and c) thirdly, the nature of offence is serious. 18. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above- mentioned factors, in my considered opinion, if the benefit of custodial interrogation of the petitioner, is denied to the Investigating Agency, which is a valuable right of the Investigating Agency, the investigation in the present case may not take a proper headway. 19. In view of above, it is hereby observed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and the present petition is devoid of merits. Hence, for want of merits, the present petition is hereby dismissed, accordingly. 20. It is, however, clarified that any observations made in the above-mentioned order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 16, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.16 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document