1 CRM-M-49963-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 CRM-M-49963-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.09.2026 CHHINDA ALIAS SHINDA PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.122 dated 03.08.2026 under Sections 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station Sadar Zira, District Ferozepur, Punjab. 2. As per FIR, On 31.07.2026, at about 10:00 A.M., complainant along with his entire family went to Sukhmani Hospital, where his daughter- in-law was admitted. At about 02:00 P.M., when they returned home, they found the inner doors of the house broken, household belongings scattered and 04 tola gold along with ₹1,60,000/- cash stolen. Later, on checking of CCTV camera footage installed in their neighbour’s house, Chhinda alias Shinda s/o Jit Singh, resident of the same village, was seen roaming outside their house at 11:05 A.M. At 11:23 A.M., he was seen jumping over the wall into their courtyard and at around 12:00 P.M., scaling back towards his own house after committing theft. Complainant further alleged that the CCTV footage was checked by the Panchayat in Sukhdev Singh’s home, it was found deleted and he suspected that petitioner Chhinda alias Shinda got the CCTV footage deleted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was immediate neighbour of complainant, who was the Village Sarpanch. HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.09.03 19:38 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRM-M-49963-2026 (O&M) Petitioner was on inimical terms with him as he was affiliated with Congress party whereas complainant belonged to Aam Aadmi Party. It was a case of false implication and there was no CCTV footage in existence. Therefore, petitioner deserved to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required to unearth the true facts and effect recovery. 6. 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 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. 7. Given the nature and substance of allegations against the petitioner, grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage, would not advance the interest of justice and would rather thwart the statutory investigational powers of the police which is not permissible. Considering all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on the merits, the petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 03.09.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.09.03 19:38 I agree to specified portions of this document