1 CRM-M-35402-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 CRM-M-35402-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 NIRMAL SINGH ALIAS BOBBY PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG Punjab. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.74 dated 06.06.2026 under Sections 109, 333, 326(g), 324(4), 351(3), 3(5), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station Taragarh, District Pathankot. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Complainant Bimla Devi stated that in the intervening night of 05.05.2026 and 06.05.2026, at about 01:00 A.M., when she, her daughter and sister-in-laws, besides other family members were sleeping in the courtyard of the house, they heard an explosion and woke up to see their window glasses broken and the windows on fire. Their house was attacked with 6 to 7 petrol bombs in glass bottles by Abhay Kumar alias Mafia s/o Motilal Gupta, Nirmal Singh alias Bobby s/o Jaspal Singh who climbed over their wall, entered the house and threatened to kill them if they informed the police. Thereafter, they fled. They suffered financial loss in the incident but did not inform the police out of fear. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated. There was unexplained delay of one month in reporting the incident to the police. It was a no injury case. Petitioner HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.22 19:20 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRM-M-35402-2026 (O&M) was not present at the scene of crime on the day of incident and it was a clear case of false implication. Petitioner’s house was raided by the police on 04.06.2026 and his cameras, DVRs were taken away. In that connection, father of the petitioner filed a protection petition in this Court for violation of his valuable right to life and liberty. Petitioner, thus, deserved to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Sukhjinder Pal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), District Pathankot has been filed on behalf of respondent-State. The same is made part of the record. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, submitting that during investigation of another case under the NDPS Act, co-accused Abhey Kumar alias Mafia disclosed that he along with the petitioner carried out the petrol bomb attack in the house of Pankaj alias Jack alias Kattar s/o Som Raj and extended threats to kill him. During investigation, a video recording of the incident was recovered from his mobile phone. Petitioner, who had close links with Abhey Kumar alias Mafia, who was involved in extortion rackets, contract killings and serious criminal activities, had been deliberately evading arrest. He was specifically named in the FIR and his custodial interrogation was required for effective investigation, recovery of incriminating material, to ascertain the conspiracy and involvement of others. 5. The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the right of the prosecution for free, fair and unhindered investigation as also personal liberty of the accused and interest of the society. Role attributed to the accused is required to be considered with great care and caution. Anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary remedy is to HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.22 19:20 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CRM-M-35402-2026 (O&M) be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the accused has been falsely involved in the crime. 6. Petitioner, along with co-accused is alleged to have scaled the walls of the house of the complainant, to have thrown petrol bombs, setting the house on fire. Allegations against him are serious. Considering the nature and substance of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the petitioner, the quantum of punishment conviction may entail and all other relevant facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to protect the petitioner with an order of anticipatory bail. No exceptional grounds are made out to allow the prayer. The petition for anticipatory bail is accordingly dismissed. 7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 22.07.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.22 19:20 I agree to specified portions of this document