CRM-M No.26990 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CRM-M No.26990 of 2026 Date of decision: 16.07.2026 Daler Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Raghav Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ---- MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:- FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0055 28.02.2026 Division No.8, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar 125, 109 and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition MANJU 2026.07.17 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26990 of 2026 -2- are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Dr. Yashpal alleging therein that on the intervening night of 27/28.02.2026, he was sleeping in his house and suddenly woke up on hearing the sounds of bursting of some crackers outside his house. His daughter who was awake, checked the CCTV camera installed in the house and found unknown persons while roaming around his car which was parked in the street outside his house. She told the complainant that she had seen two suspicious persons while roaming around after parking their motorbike in the street. On checking CCTV camera, the complainant found that one Sikh person with a muffled face had fired a shot at the rear windshield of his car and then three rounds were fired by him at the gate and camera and then they had fled. 3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated. During the course of investigation, analysis of the CCTV footage was done which led to identification of co-accused Jagjit @ Jaggi and Lovepreet Singh @ Love. Accused Jagjit Singh @ Jaggi was arrested on 06.03.2026. He suffered disclosure statement to the effect that on the asking of the present petitioner who became acquainted with him in jail, to teach lesson to a person who was harassing one of his female friends and on promise of payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner for carrying out that task, he had agreed and hatched a conspiracy in pursuance of which he had purchased illicit pistols from Madhya Pradesh MANJU 2026.07.17 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26990 of 2026 -3- and then on the instructions of the petitioner had fired shots with pistol along with co-accused Lovepreet Singh, outside the house of the complainant. He also disclosed about preparing of a video of a fire incident by using mobile phone provided by the petitioner. On the basis of this disclosure, the petitioner was nominated as an accused. Apprehending his arrest, he filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 02.05.2026. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statements of the co-accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. No recovery is to be effected from him. His custodial interrogation is not required. He is ready to join the investigation. The subject offences are not attracted qua him. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was the principal conspirator and mastermind behind the commission of the subject offences. He had hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused Jagjit Singh by making promise to give a sum of Rs.50,000/- for executing the firing incident. He provided a mobile phone without a sim card containing a google map MANJU 2026.07.17 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26990 of 2026 -4- video indicating the precise location of the house of the complainant and even instructed the co-accused to record video of the firing incident. It was on his instructions that the co-accused Jagjit Singh and Lovepreet Singh had gone to the house of the complainant by identifying the same with the assistance of the location shared by the petitioner and had indiscriminately opened fire at the vehicle and over the house of the complainant. The case is at its nascent stage. The allegations make out a prima facie case for commission of subject offences by the petitioner. For the purpose of recovery of illegal firearms and mobile phone which are alleged to have been handed over to the petitioner by the co-accused after using the same at the time of occurrence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. The antecedents of the petitioner are not clean as he had been involved in three other cases of serious nature. The offences for which the petitioner and the co-accused are booked are not an isolated act but reflect a deliberate pattern of criminal conduct. It is, hence, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused Jagjit Singh by making offer to give a sum of Rs.50,000/- to him by firing outside the house of the complainant to terrorize him and in pursuance of this conspiracy, the co-accused Jagjit Singh @ Jaggi along with co-accused Lovepreet Singh are alleged to have committed the MANJU 2026.07.17 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh CRM-M No.26990 of 2026 -5- firing incident to overawe the complainant and his family. The allegations point out a case of participation of the petitioner by being principal conspirator and mastermind behind the occurrence. For the purpose of eliciting information as to the manner in which the conspiracy was hatched and subject offences were committed, his custodial interrogation is required. In case, the same is denied to the investigation agency, that shall leave many glaring loopholes and gaps, adversely affecting the investigation. The powers of anticipatory bail are extraordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. 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, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) 16.07.2026 JUDGE manju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANJU 2026.07.17 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order /judgment Chandigarh