CRM-M-38002-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 CRM-M-38002-2026 Date of decision: 02.09.2026 Satpal Singh @ Soni Sherpuri Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Anr .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Kartik Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J (ORAL) 1. Petitioner, who is accused in case bearing FIR No.138 dated 08.06.2026 registered against him at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural, for the commission of offences punishable u/s 308(2),318(4),61(2),74 and 351(2) of BNS, has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail. 2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be noticed hereinbelow: Criminal proceedings in the present case were initiated on the basis of a statement dated 08.06.2026 given by complainant-respondent No.2 “XXX” wife of “YYY” who stated that she is citizen of England. She had filed a Civil suit against some members of her in-laws family, which is pending adjudication before the S.D.M, Jagraon. On 03.06.2026, when the said case was listed for hearing, she, along with Jassa Singh, came to the Court Complex to attend the proceedings. There, she noticed the Advocate representing the opposite party clicking her photographs. When she requested the counsel not to do so, a verbal MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38002-2026 2 altercation ensued. She thereafter thought it appropriate to hold a press conference. In the meanwhile, two persons approached her, introduced themselves as press reporters and represented that their news reports were being broadcast on various channels. Relying upon their assurance, she visited their office on the following day, i.e. 04.06.2026, and held a press conference. She subsequently came to know that the said persons were Soni Sherpuri (petitioner), resident of Sherpura Kalan, and Nasib Virk, resident of Virk. According to the complainant, both the aforesaid persons demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her, promising that the amount was required for broadcasting her press conference through the media. Believing their representation, she handed over Rs.1,00,000/- to them at Pehalwan Da Dhaba, Jagraon. On the same day, she submitted an application to the SSP, Ludhiana (Rural), with regard to the incident which had occurred on 03.06.2026 in the Court Complex. The said application was accompanied by a duly attested affidavit, wherein the complainant stated that she had held a press conference. She also clarified that the press conference had not been held under the influence of any political party and that the sequence of events relating to the dispute between her and the counsel representing the opposite party had been narrated therein. Four days thereafter, i.e. on 08.06.2026, while the complainant, along with Jassa Singh and her brother Jaskaran Singh, was proceeding towards Police Station City, Jagraon, she received a call from Mobile No. 98689-93932 on her Mobile No. 9076900005. The caller introduced himself as the same press reporter who had earlier arranged the press conference and asked her to meet him. When she reached the disclosed place, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was allegedly demanded from her on the pretext that the caller had links with certain senior police officers MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38002-2026 3 known to him and that, with his assistance, appropriate action would be taken on her complaint. Since she did not have Rs.5,00,000/- with her, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was allegedly taken from her by the aforesaid two persons. The complainant further alleged that, at a later stage, she came to know that the aforesaid two persons were not press reporters. When she, along with her brother, asked them to return the amount already paid, they started threatening her and again demanded Rs.5,00,000/-, representing that they would broadcast news against her, as a consequence whereof she would not be permitted to travel abroad. Upon her refusal, a physical altercation took place. Her brother, who was accompanying her, was beaten up, while she was also allegedly touched inappropriately. According to the complainant, she was also offered to hand over a recording of the conversation between her and the aforesaid two persons, in which they could allegedly be heard demanding money from her. Primarily with this backdrop, she requested the police Authorities to catch hold of aforesaid persons as also to initiate appropriate proceedings against them. On the basis of said complaint, aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the present petitioner and Nasib Singh @ Nasib Virk under Sections 308(2),318(4),61(2),74 and 351(2) of BNS. On 08.06.2026, co-accused, Nasib Singh was arrested. The pen drive containing the audio recording of conversation between the complainant and the two accused was handed over by complainant, which was taken into possession by the I.O. Status report filed by way of affidavit of Jaswinder Singh, DSP, Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural) reflects that repeated notices were served upon the petitioner to appear before the I.O, who chose to ignore the same. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38002-2026 4 3. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner filed an application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The same came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide order dated 07.07.2026. Aggrieved of which, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations levelled in the FIR, even if taken to be true on their face value, though not admitted, do not disclose any necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations are false, omnibus and primarily based upon alleged media communications, audio recordings and WhatsApp conversations, whereas the alleged incident is stated to have occurred outside the Police Station. All such aspects, according to learned counsel, are capable of verification with the aid of CCTV footage, call detail and other official records. It is further contended that the allegation regarding the petitioner and co-accused Nasib Virk having touched the complainant inappropriately has been falsely introduced only with a view to aggravate the nature of the offence. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel contends that the FIR does not specify that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was individually handed over to the petitioner, nor does it refer to any receipt, digital transaction or other documentary evidence in support thereof. It is next submitted that the Investigating Agency has not verified whether Mobile No. 98689-93932 actually belongs to the petitioner, who has been falsely implicated in the present case as a counterblast to the writ petition bearing CRWP No.6916 of 2026 filed by him, whereby he had questioned the alleged illegal detention of co-accused Nasib Singh by local police officials. In the said writ petition, taking note of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, a Warrant Officer was appointed. It is submitted that immediately upon the Police Authorities becoming MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38002-2026 5 aware of the said development, the present FIR was registered at 23.49 hours on 08.06.2026 and the occurrence was shown to have occurred between 08.30 PM to 09.00 PM on the same day whereas Nasib Singh stated before the Warrant Officer that he had been brought to the Police Station at 04.00 PM on 08.06.2026. CCTV footage was also not shown to the Warrant Officer. Somehow, petitioner was successful in fleeing away from the Police Station. It is next contended that, if the version of the complainant is examined in the light of the WhatsApp call records and other material relied upon by her, it becomes apparent that she had herself approached the petitioner and co- accused Nasib Singh and had remained in constant contact with them for the purpose of securing media coverage of her grievances. It is further submitted that there is no MLR of the complainant’s brother to corroborate the allegation that he was assaulted by the petitioner and co-accused. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel contends that no case for custodial interrogation of the petitioner is made out, particularly when nothing remains to be recovered from him. It is also submitted that mere involvement of the petitioner in another cases cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for declining the relief of pre-arrest bail, particularly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. Per contra, while opposing the request for grant of pre-arrest bail learned State counsel contends that in the light of the seriousness and gravity of the allegations levelled, it has been submitted that petitioner, who has specifically been named in the FIR, has failed to make out a case of exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour, entitling him the grant of pre-arrest bail. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38002-2026 6 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on record. 7. Before expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to certain relevant judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the factors to be kept in mind while dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail, have been discussed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab”, ((1980) 2 SCC 5) held as under:-:- “29. In Gurcharan Sing v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for the Court, that "there cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail". 30. In American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 8, page 806, para 39) it is stated : "Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circimstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.” It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. 31. In regard to anticipatory bail if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38002-2026 7 applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, (1962) 3 SCR 622 which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.” In the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “92.1. Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, when a person complains of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38002-2026 8 apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest. xxx 92.3. Nothing in Section 438 Cr. PC, compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. 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), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified – and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437 (3), Cr. PC [by virtue of Section 438 (2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged on a case by case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the state or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed. 92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38002-2026 9 grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court. xxx 92.6. An order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence. xxx 92.9. It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the court concerned, which grants anticipatory bail, for a direction under Section 439 (2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.” 8. Factual aspects of the case have already been noticed in para 2 of the order. Having considered the matter in the light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, this Court finds that specific and serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and co-accused Nasib Virk, (who has since been arrested). As per allegations, after initially representing themselves to be press reporter, petitioner and co-accused assured the complainant of providing media coverage to her grievances and demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the said purpose. Subsequently, they demanded a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant by assuring that they are well connected with senior police officers and could, therefore through their influence, ensure appropriate action on her complaint dated 04.06.2026 against her in-laws. Upon complainant refusing to accede to their demands, she was threatened that adverse news would be broadcast against her, thus she would MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38002-2026 10 not be able to travel abroad. The allegations, particularly when considered in their entirety, cannot be said to be vague or innocuous. The manner in which the alleged demands were made, coupled with the threats extended to the complainant, constitute circumstances which warrant a proper and unhindered investigation. It is also significant that, despite having been served notices under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner did not join the investigation. Such conduct cannot be lost sight of while considering his prayer for the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. This Court also finds that the antecedents of the petitioner, who is also involved in another FIR No.246 dated 28.11.2022 under Sections 384,506 IPC and Section 67 of IT Act (Sections 500,109 IPC added later on), as mentioned in para 11 of the status report dated 22.08.2026, are questionable. Resultantly, the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of exceptional circumstances, hardship or other compelling grounds warranting grant of this extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. 9. The petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 02.09.2026 ( AARADHNA SAWHNEY ) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.03 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document