206 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-28329 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 Rajbir Singh alias Raja ... Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh. Present: Mr. Jagjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. I.P.S.Sabharwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. 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. 05 dated 16.01.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 308(4), 351(2), 3(5), 109 & 324(4) of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ and Section(s) 3, 4 & 5 of ‘the Explosive Substances Act, 1908’ Police Station Kathu Nangal, District Amritsar, Punjab. 2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Amandeep Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as “complainant” only. It was stated by the above named complainant that he is an Advocate and also the owner of some agricultural land, a brick kiln, a hot mix plant, a petrol pump and other business establishment known as ‘M/s R.K. Eneterprises’. According to complainant few days ago he received a WhatsApp call from DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-28329 of 2026 2 foreign based mobile number and the callers identified themselves as ‘Happy Pashiya’ and ‘Harwinder Sigh alias Rinda’. As per complainant the caller had demanded money from him as ransom and threatened that if their demand was not met he would be done to death. The complainant further alleged that on 15.01.2025 at about 08:00 P.M. his uncle called him and told that someone had thrown a bomb/grenade inside their house. According to complainant he checked the CCTV footage and found that three unknown persons riding on a motorcycle had come to their house and threw a bomb which created a crater in the floor and damaged the flower pots and flower beds. 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. Heard. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been implicated merely on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the co- accused, and that there is no connecting evidence to show the involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. 6. The learned State counsel has controverted the above- DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-28329 of 2026 3 mentioned arguments. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that in the present case there are very serious allegations against the petitioner, i.e. being part of a gang involved in the activities of extortion of money. According to learned State counsel, in the present case, in order to terrorise the complainant and his family an attack with the help of bomb was made, and that the involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime, has been revealed by his co-accused in his disclosure statement. According to learned State counsel in order to fix the role of petitioner in the commission of crime, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of paramount importance. 7. The learned State counsel has also contended that the instant case is a case involving foreign based gangsters/terrorists who are terrorising the affluent families in the State of Punjab, for the purpose of extortion of money. According to learned State counsel the modus operandi of the above said gangsters is such that they demand money by making call from a foreign based mobile phone by using WhatsApp application, and that in order to terrorise the victim and collect ransom, local boys are engaged. As per learned State counsel there are allegations against the petitioner that he was working for the above-mentioned gang. 8. The record has been perused carefully. 9. A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. Those factors are:- i) that in the present case the investigation is still underway and the role of petitioner is, yet, to be fixed; DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-28329 of 2026 4 ii) that the nature of offence is such that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. In my opinion, in the present case if the benefit of custodial interrogation is denied to the Investigating Agency it will definitely hamper the investigation; and iii) that the right of custodial interrogation of an accused by the Investigating Agency, is a valuable right and in the given fact-situation if the above-mentioned right is denied to the Investigating Agency it may result into miscarriage of justice, as the Investigating Agency may be deprived of opportunity to collect relevant evidence. 10. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principle 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 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-28329 of 2026 5 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 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-28329 of 2026 6 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. 15. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above- discussed factors, the gravity of offence and the direct link between the commission of crime and the present petitioner, it is hereby observed that the present petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Thus, in my opinion, being devoid of merits, the present petition deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed, accordingly. 16. 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 20, 2026 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2026.07.21 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document