CRM-M No.35068 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 CRM-M No.35068 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:17.07.2026 Rakesh Kumar @ Rocky ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Randeep Singh Waraich, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : For the benefit of anticipatory bail, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, in a case arising out of the FIR No.125 dated 29.05.2026, under Sections 308(2), 61(2) [Section 249 added later on] of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, Police Station City Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of 'Tejbr Singh', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by the complainant that he is a resident of Batala and running three restaurants, namely ‘RIFLE-18 Cafe’, ‘RIFLE-18 Rooftop’ and ‘RIFLE-18 Palassio’, in Batala. As per complainant, few days before the occurrence, co-accused ‘Pawan Gurdaspuria’ and ‘Aman Aanda’ had demanded ransom from him, and upon his refusal to pay, they threatened him of dire consequences. According to complainant, 22.05.2026, the said co-accused, or their associates, fired gun- shots outside ‘RIFLE-18 Rooftop Restaurant’, and that in respect to above MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.35068 of 2026 (O&M) 2 mentioned incident the FIR No. 116 dated 22.05.2026 was registered at Police Station City Balala. Thereafter, on 28.05.2026, complainant received a telephonic call from the manager, who informed him that at about 11:45 P.M., three young persons, travelling on a motorcycle and Activa scooter, fired about 12 gun-shots at the hotel/restaurant when the employees were closing shutters, thereby endangering their lives. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, on the basis of the secret information, and other material collected by the investigating agency, the present petitioner ‘Rakesh Kumar @ Rocky’ was nominated as an accused for his alleged involvement in the firing incident. 4. Heard. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that, merely, because he is a relative of main accused namely ‘Aman Aanda’ who is absconding, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case, and being harassed by the police. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a simple businessman who is running his shop, and that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner has any kind of contact, whatsoever, with the prime accused ‘Aman Aanda’ who is allegedly seeking ransom from the complainant.’; It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that investigating agency could not apprehend the main culprit, and therefore all the relatives and family members of prime accused are being harassed. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.35068 of 2026 (O&M) 3 6. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel during the course of initial investigation it has come on surface that the petitioner and other co-accused have been providing logistic support to the main accused, who is a foreign based gangster. As pr learned State counsel in order to collect extortion money the persons, like petitioner and other relatives, are being used by the above named gangster, and therefore, in order to find out the entire chain of persons, involved in the racket of extortion of money and to fix role of the petitioner in the above mentioned offence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 7. The record has been perused carefully. 8. In the present case, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is seeking extraordinary remedy by claiming the benefit of anticipatory bail. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.35068 of 2026 (O&M) 4 hamper the investigation. 10. 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, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 11. 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:- (1) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. (2) 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. (3) 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. 12. In the light of the above mentioned principles of law if the facts and circumstances of the present case are analysed, it transpires that in the present case the investigation is at infant stage and there are allegations against the petitioner that he was instrumental in facilitating logistic and other support to the prime accused, and that in order to fix the role of the petitioner in the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.35068 of 2026 (O&M) 5 commission of offence his custodial interrogation is of paramount importance. 13. It is also relevant to mention here that right of custodial interrogation of an accused is a valuable right of an investigating agency, and if the investigating agency is deprived of such right in the present case, the investigation may end up to a dead end, and may not take a proper headway. Thus, it is hereby observed that in the given fact-situation custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to fix his role, and the extent of involvement, in the commission of crime. 14. Taking into consideration the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, allegations with regard to direct involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime and other mitigating circumstances, it is hereby held that in the instant case no ground exists, wherein the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court, by virtue of Section 482 of BNSS, should be exercised and the benefit of anticipatory bail should be accorded to the petitioner. 15. As a sequel to above mentioned discussion, it is hereby held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Thus finding no merit, the present petition is hereby dismissed accordingly. 16. However, it is made clear that any observations recorded in the present case, shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 17.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document