CRM-M-38307-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CRM-M-38307-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:16.07.2026 Bikramjeet Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. 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’) by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.94 dated 21.05.2026, registered under Sections 61, 111, 113(3) and 152 of the BNS and Section 3 of Official Secrets Act, 1923, at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot. 2. As per the allegations, on 21.05.2026, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that the present petitioner along with co-accused Baljit Singh @ Bittu, Baljinder Singh @ Vicky and Taranpreet Singh @ Tanu was associated in anti national activities. They had installed CCTV cameras at a shop existing on the side of NH44 highway road in the area of village Sujanpur with an intent to monitor and spy the movements of Army HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.17 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38307-2026 (O&M) -2- and Paramilitary Forces. It was also informed that the live feed and surveillance information of the said CCTV cameras was being sent to Pakistan based handlers and to other countries through electronic medium, which was a serious threat to the sovereignty, integrity and security of India. Believing the secret information to be true, a raiding party was formed, which apprehended accused Baljit Singh @ Bitu. Investigation is underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot vide order dated 08.06.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to a party faction. Co-accused Baljinder Singh and Taranpreet Singh, who were in custody in some other case have been arrested in this case. There is no material on record to connect him with the commission of subject offence. Infact, on asking of accused Baljit Singh to arrange for a shop on rent for him at Pathankot highway, he had arranged a meeting between Ankit Sharma owner of the shop and the abovesaid Baljit Singh, who had taken the shop of Ankit Sharma on rent. Baljit Singh had stopped making payment of rent and on asking of Ankit Sharma to intervene, he had asked the abovesaid Baljit Singh to pay the rent but he had rather misbehaved with the petitioner. He has no link with Baljit Singh, who is mastermind of the crime. He had no hand in commission of the alleged offence. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. With these broad submissions, it is argued that the petitioner deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.17 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38307-2026 (O&M) -3- 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by her that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, who by hatching a conspiracy with the co- accused, had got installed CCTV cameras on NH44 to capture movements of Armed Forces for the purpose of supplying secret information to Pakistan based handlers, thereby putting the security of the country at stake. For the purpose of conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, stressed the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused in pursuance of which, CCTV cameras were got installed in a shop situated at NH44 highway road to capture movements of Armed Forces and Army and to supply the same to Pakistan based handlers. The allegations against him are quite grave in nature. It is well settled proposition of law 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 and likelihood of fleeing justice. The Courts are required to be guided by consideration such as nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the person and the facts of the case. Taking into HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.17 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38307-2026 (O&M) -4- consideration the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must for the purpose of conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter. The case is at the nascent stage. Even if it is assumed that no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, that alone cannot be considered to be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail and it cannot be stated that a prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked in such like circumstances. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow this petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 8. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 16.07.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.07.17 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document